Human mobility in tHe Caribbean - IOM Online …...Trinidad and Tobago and Barbados, whereas relative economic stability and a policy of hereditary migration was a major pull factor

ACPOBS/2013/PUB16

Human mobility in tHe Caribbean:

Circulation of skills and immigration

from the South

OBSERVATORY ON MIGRATIONOBSERVATOIRE ACP SUR LES MIGRATIONSOBSERVATÓRIO ACP DAS MIGRAÇÕESO

researchreport

2013

Kairi Consultants Ltd.

An Initiative of the ACP Secretariat, Funded by the European Union

Implemented by IOM and with the Financial Support of Switzerland, IOM, the IOM Development Fund and UNFPA

International Organization for Migration (IOM)Organisation internationale pour les migrations (OIM)Organização Internacional para as Migrações (OIM)

LCONSUL TD.TSTAN

Cuba

n do

ctor

s wor

king

in H

aiti

© 2

010

- Peo

ple’

s Wor

ld -

CC-B

Y-N

C 2.

0

ACP Observatory on Migration

The ACP Observatory on Migration is an initiative of the Secretariat of the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) Group of States, funded by the European Union, implemented by the International Organization for Migration (IOM) in a Consortium with 15 partners and with the financial support of Switzerland, IOM, the IOM Development Fund and UNFPA. Established in 2010, the ACP Observatory is an institution designed to produce data on South–South ACP migration for migrants, civil society and policymakers and enhance research capacities in ACP countries for the improvement of the situation of migrants and the strengthening of the migration–development nexus.

The Observatory was established to facilitate the creation of a network of research institutions and experts on migration research. Activities are starting in 12 pilot countries and will be progressively extended to other interested ACP countries. The 12 pilot countries are: Angola, Cameroon, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Haiti, Kenya, Lesotho, Nigeria, Papua New Guinea, Senegal, Timor‐Leste, Trinidad and Tobago and the United Republic of Tanzania.

The Observatory has launched research and capacity‐building activities on South–South migration and development issues. Through these activities, the ACP Observatory aims to address many issues that are becoming increasingly important for the ACP Group as part of the migration–development nexus. Documents and other research outputs and capacity‐building manuals can be accessed and downloaded free of charge through the Observatory’s website (www.acpmigration‐obs.org). Other upcoming publications and information on the Observatory’s activities will be posted online.

© 2013 International Organization for Migration (IOM)© 2013 ACP Observatory on Migration

Document prepared by Kairi Consultants Ltd. This publication has been produced with the financial assistance of the European Union. The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of the authors and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the Secretariat of the ACP Group of States, the European Union, the International Organization for Migration (IOM) and other members of the Consortium of the ACP Observatory on Migration, the Swiss Federation or UNFPA.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise without the prior written permission of the publisher.

Layout prepared by Pablo Escribano Miralles, ACP Observatory on Migration.

ACPOBS/2013/PUB16

OBSERVATORY ON MIGRATIONOBSERVATOIRE ACP SUR LES MIGRATIONSOBSERVATÓRIO ACP DAS MIGRAÇÕESO

Human mobility in tHe Caribbean:Circulation of skills and

immigration from the South

Kairi Consultants Ltd.

iii

Foreword

While South‐North migration flows from the Caribbean to North America have been widely studied, South‐South migration, in particular intraregional movements, has thus far remained largely unexplored. Although migratory movements in the region have a long historical precedence, there has not been enough research on the challenges and opportunities migration creates for the Caribbean’s socio‐economic growth and development. This report seeks to address these shortcomings while presenting evidence‐based recommendations for the development of migration policies at the regional level that are capable of capitalizing the positive contributions of migration to development and responding to potential risks for migrants and societies.

To this end, this study focuses on three Caribbean countries with a high migration rate: Barbados, Trinidad and Tobago and Saint Kitts and Nevis. The findings and recommendations have a prospective long‐term significance as they present an evidence base for informing a future regional migration and development policy in the Caribbean Community (CARICOM). The persistence of discrimination and xenophobia within host societies, for example, highlights the importance of promoting immigrants’ integration and improving their access to basic services such as housing, health and social assistance. Furthermore, the study points to the need for regional migration data collection and processing to allow evidence‐based policymaking.

I would like to thank the ACP Observatory on Migration, Kairi Consultants Ltd. and the University of the West Indies, Barbados for the importance given to this matter, which is nowadays of ever‐increasing relevance for CARICOM due to the potential positive impact of human mobility on development in the Caribbean. Considering the previous lack of research on migratory flows within the region, this study promises to be a necessary contribution to the understanding of intraregional South‐South migration flows and underpin the management of the migration‐development nexus within the Caribbean region.

Myrna BernardOfficer‐in‐ChargeDirectorate of Human and Social DevelopmentCaribbean Community (CARICOM) Secretariat

v

Abstract

The aim of the study is to assess the impact of South–South migration flows in the Caribbean. Four principal migration categories were examined: labour mobility, student mobility, undocumented/irregular migration and parental migration. The aforementioned categories of migration pose various challenges for the development of countries in the subregion, many of which are transit, sending and receiving countries. With regard to labour mobility, the implementation of the Free Movement Protocol under the Caribbean Single Market and Economy (CSME) has been deficient and various anomalies are highlighted. Despite the provision for labour mobility under the CSME, the current study found that migrants face discrimination in accessing health care and education and stereotyping of certain nationalities is prevalent.

The study was informed by responses to surveys administered to both migrants and policymakers in order to complement gaps in the literature and the difficulties arising from limited access to official data. To a large extent, data must be taken from extra‐regional organizations due to a lack of reliable, consistent and harmonized data collection throughout the region. This is a major hindrance to ensuring that the negative repercussions of migration are addressed by informing policy with research, producing data to build capacity, recording and disseminating information and sharing lessons learned as well as best practices.

A culture of evidenced‐based research needs to be nurtured so that a management system for data collection can be created that takes into account the specificities of individual countries while streamlining procedures with other countries in the region. This may be furthered by encouraging countries to participate in conversations on migration management, which bring together policymakers, civil society, law enforcement officials and international organizations.

Key words: Irregular migration, intra-regional, South–South, development, Caribbean, labour mobility, CSME.

vii

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge the assistance of Indianna Minto‐Coy and the staff at the Shridath Ramphal Center at the Cave Hill Campus of the University of the West Indies, Barbados, the various student and diaspora associations who participated in the surveys, policymakers and government officials across the three countries for their valuable comments and responses to the policymakers’ survey and Rochelle Nakhid and Rosemarie Scott for assistance in selecting irregular migrants in Trinidad and facilitating interviews at the Living Water Community. Special gratitude is also extended to Carol Philips of the Jamaican Kittitian Association of St. Kitts, and Walcott James of the Dominican Republic Association of Nevis for their invaluable voluntary service during the planning of the focus group meetings and for brilliant facilitating during the sessions.

ix

Table of contents

List of acronyms and abbreviations ............................................................ xi

List of figures and tables ........................................................................... xiii

Executive summary ................................................................................... xvRésumé analytique ................................................................................... xixResumo executivo ...................................................................................xxiii

I. Introduction: Rationale for choosing study countries ..............................1

2. Methodology ..........................................................................................52.1 Objectives..............................................................................................52.2 Methodology .........................................................................................52.3 Limitations of the research ...................................................................7

3. Desk review and discussion and analysis of data .....................................93.1 Desk review: The study of South–South migration in

the Caribbean ........................................................................................93.2 Analysis of stock data ..........................................................................17

4. Discussion of focus group meeting findings ........................................... 434.1 Discussion of broad themes in the focus groups.................................444.2 Conclusion ...........................................................................................55

5. Discussion of policymakers’ survey findings ......................................... 575.1 Survey findings ....................................................................................575.2 Conclusion ...........................................................................................62

6. Conclusions and recommendations ...................................................... 656.1 Conclusions .........................................................................................656.2 Recommendations ..............................................................................67

7. References ............................................................................................ 69

8. Annex: Sample specimen of policymakers’ survey form ........................ 75

xi

List of acronyms and abbreviations

ACP The African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of StatesCARICOM Caribbean CommunityCSME Caribbean Single Market and EconomyCSO Central Statistical OfficeECLAC Economic Commission for Latin America and the CaribbeanGDP Gross Domestic ProductIDP Internally displaced personsILO International Labour OrganizationIOM International Organization for MigrationNGO Non‐governmental organizationOECD Organisation for Economic Co‐operation and DevelopmentOECS Organization of Eastern Caribbean StatesTTD Trinidad and Tobago DollarUN United NationsUNDP United Nations Development ProgrammeUNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural OrganizationUNICEF United Nations Children’s FundUNHCR United Nations High Commissioner for RefugeesUWI University of the West Indies

xiii

List of figures and tables

FiguresFigure 3.1: Correlation between migrant stocks and GDP per capita, 2010Figure 3.2: Correlation between emigration rates of the tertiariy

educated population and GDP per capita, 2000Figure 3.3: International migrant stock, 2005 and 2010Figure 3.4: Stock of migrants as a percentage of the population, 2010Figure 3.5: Stock of emigrants as a percentage of the population, 2005

and 2010Figure 3.6: Average annual rate of population change (per 1,000 of the

population), 2005Figure 3.7: Average annual rate of population change (per 1,000 of the

population), 2010Figure 3.8: Net migration rate (per 1,000 of the population), 2005, 2010,

2011Figure 3.9: Females as percentage of immigrants, 2010Figure 3.10: Emigration rate of tertiary educated population in Caribbean

countries (% of tertiary educated population), 2000Figure 3.11: Stock of migrants from the Caribbean currently living in OECD

countriesFigure 3.12: Irregular migrants in Trinidad and Tobago, 2005–2010Figure 3.13: Origin of refugess/asylum‐seekers to Trinidad and Tobago,

2000–2012Figure 3.14: Detainees in Trinidad and Tobago by origin, as of May 2012Figure 3.15: Annual outflows of workers’ remittances (USD)Figure 3.16: Annual workers’ remittances inflows (USD)

Tables Table 3.1: Selected country indicators in the CaribbeanTable 3.2: Top destination and source countries of emigrants and

immigrants of the CaribbeanTable 4.1: The structure of the focus groups and the broad themes

discussed

xiv

Table 4.2: Positives and negatives of being a migrant in BarbadosTable 4.3: Positives and negatives of being a migrant in Saint Kitts and

NevisTable 4.4: Positives and negatives of being a migrant in Trinidad and

Tobago

Human mobility in the Caribbean: Circulation of skills and immigration from the South

xv

Executive summary

This study aims to initiate a discussion on migration within the Caribbean that is based on a broad perspective, inclusive of the many causes and impacts of intraregional migration.

Causes of migration

More pull than push factors were identified as motivators of intraregional migration. Differentials in economic prospects – particularly wage and income differentials – were key pull factors for immigrants in Trinidad and Tobago and Barbados, whereas relative economic stability and a policy of hereditary migration was a major pull factor for migrants from the Dominican Republic to Saint Kitts and Nevis.

The impacts of migration on the receiving country

Concerning economic benefits for the receiving countries, migrants brought skillsets in high demand – particularly in the construction sector and in the civil service – to supplement local skills shortages. Regular migrants contribute via taxes and social security payments.

The impacts of migration on migrants and their families

Migration was found to have a small negative impact on migrant families in Trinidad and Tobago. The accessibility of services and general treatment of immigrants was found to be highly dependent on migrants’ nationality, and irregular migrants, particularly those from African countries, experienced discrimination and maltreatment at the hands of the State. One major impact that was mentioned was the cost of migration.

The majority of migrants lamented the poor implementation of the Caribbean Single Market and Economy (CSME) stipulations, and perceived much of the difficulty in accessing benefits under the CSME was due to hindrances at the federal level to the proper operation of CSME laws.

Discrimination was found to be based largely on nationality: migrants from more disadvantaged countries were generally treated worse than those from more developed countries. Nationals with lower levels of education were perceived as more likely to mistreat non‐nationals regardless of the origin of non‐nationals. No significant difficulties were reported when families moved to Saint Kitts


xvi

and Nevis. The strong nationalistic sentiment among many nationals often translates into xenophobia or more tacit forms of discrimination against non‐nationals, although general treatment is relative to other variables such as nationality, socioeconomic status or ethnicity.

Non‐nationals did not face resistance in acquiring capital or establishing their economic base (for example, acquiring property, accessing financial services, and so forth).

The survey findings

The data garnered from the survey of policymakers suggest that while there is an acknowledgement of the broader importance of migration issues to the development agenda of the case study countries, little has been done so far to sensitize officials to the importance of regular, reliable and timely enumeration of migration. There was also some divergence between what officials perceived about the realities which migrants in their countries faced, and the actual situation of migrants. Much of what policymakers perceived about migration issues were reflective of the general public opinion on issues ranging from the impact of migrants on social services to the broader societal perceptions and prejudices against migrants.

The following are some recommendations, which emerged from this study:

- Improved data collection

a) Sensitize officials to the importance of regular, reliable and timely enumeration of migration information;

b) Bring together statistical and academic bodies from the region to focus on means of harmonizing data collection and to share best practice;

c) Pay special attention to the need for disaggregated data, in particular for careful analysis of the socioeconomic impact of migration, for instance on wages, income distribution, South–South remittances, and on issues like gender, health and migrants’ rights;

d) Address the absence of centralized data collection units that can gather intelligence from other agencies.

- Sharing and dissemination of migration data

a) Sensitize officials in various ministries to the need to address data and information deficiencies proactively, while elevating the priority of migration issues in policy discussions through the ambit of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM);


xvii

b) Elevate the priority of migration issues to ensure that the appropriate financial, technical and human resources are committed so that policy reform can become a reality in the medium to long‐term.

- Policy change

a) Ensure wider and more sustained engagement/consultation with civil society on policies through town‐hall meetings, interaction between non‐governmental organizations (NGOs) and government ministries, and discussion forums;

b) Sensitize the leadership of key agencies, such as the Ministries of National Security, to the importance of migration issues, the nexus between migration and development and encourage a reorientation of the leadership towards the importance of research for better policymaking;

c) Ensure comprehensive reform of immigration policy based on priority economic sectors and labour needs;

d) Develop well‐articulated immigration policies that identify which skillsets the individual country is seeking to attract and encourage stricter implementation of stipulations under countries’ respective immigration acts ;

e) Strengthen national border patrols to curtail irregular migration and ensure greater collaboration with the regional and international security apparatus to interdict human trafficking;

f) Develop a specific refugee policy that honours the commitment to international conventions to protect the human rights of refugees.

- CSME and labour mobility

a) Ratify legislation on six‐month stays by all countries participating in the CSME;

b) Renew commitment to the spirit and letter of the CSME by governments of the region;

c) Address anomalies in immigration practice that are discriminatory and which run counter to the agreed treaty governing human mobility under the CSME;

d) Lessen bureaucracy in the application process for CSME skills certificates;

e) Ensure that CSME implementation units are fully active and equipped in all participating countries, including proper data entry and collection methods.


xix

Résumé analytique

La présente étude a pour but de lancer une discussion sur la migration dans les Caraïbes, qui s’appuie sur une perspective générale embrassant les multiples causes et conséquences de la migration intrarégionale.

Les causes de la migration

La migration intrarégionale s’appuie davantage sur des facteurs d’attraction que sur des facteurs de répulsion. Les écarts dans les perspectives économiques (et plus particulièrement les écarts salariaux et de revenus) constituaient des facteurs d’attraction importants pour les immigrants à Trinité‐et‐Tobago et à la Barbade, alors que la stabilité économique relative et la politique de migration héréditaire étaient les principaux facteurs d’attraction pour les migrants originaires de République dominicaine s’installant à Saint‐Kitts‐et‐Nevis.

Les conséquences de la migration pour le pays d’accueil

En ce qui concerne les avantages économiques pour les pays d’accueil, les migrants apportent des compétences très demandées sur le territoire, notamment dans le secteur de la construction et dans la fonction publique, compétences

qui permettent de combler les pénuries de main‐d’œuvre locales. Les migrants réguliers participent à l’effort en versant des impôts et des cotisations de sécurité sociale.

Les conséquences de la migration sur les migrants et leurs familles

On observe quelques conséquences négatives pour les familles des immigrants à Trinité‐et‐Tobago. Les niveaux d’accès aux services et le traitement en général des immigrants étaient en grande partie déterminés par leur nationalité, et les migrants en situation irrégulière, en particulier ceux originaires de pays d’Afrique, faisaient l’objet de discriminations et de mauvais traitements infligés par l’État. Le coût de la migration était l’une des principales conséquences mentionnée.

La majorité des migrants se plaignaient de la mauvaise application des conditions du Marché unique et de l’économie des Caraïbes (CSME) et estimaient que la plupart des problèmes d’accès aux avantages liés au CSME étaient dus à des obstacles fédéraux à la bonne mise en œuvre de la législation liée au CSME.

La discrimination était considérée comme fortement liée à la nationalité : on estimait que les


xx

migrants originaires de pays plus défavorisés étaient moins bien traités que ceux originaires de pays plus développés. Les citoyens moins instruits étaient considérés comme davantage susceptibles de maltraiter les non‐ressortissants, indépendamment de leur origine. Aucun problème particulier n’a été signalé en ce qui concerne les familles s’installant à Saint‐Kitts‐et‐Nevis.

Les non‐ressortissants ne se heurtaient à aucune résistance dans l’acquisition de capitaux ou l’établissement de leur base économique (par exemple, lors de l’acquisition d’une habitation, dans l’accès aux services financiers, et ainsi de suite).

Le fort sentiment nationaliste se traduit souvent par de la xénophobie ou par des formes plus tacites de discrimination à l’égard des non‐ressortissants, même si le traitement qui leur est réservé en général est déterminé par d’autres variables, comme la nationalité, la situation socioéconomique ou l’origine ethnique.

Les observations de l’enquête

Les données recueillies dans le cadre de l’enquête menée auprès des décideurs indiquent que si l’on a conscience de l’importance générale des questions de migration pour le

programme de développement des pays visés par l’étude de cas, peu de choses ont été faites jusqu’à présent pour sensibiliser les responsables à l’importance d’un recensement régulier, fiable et ponctuel des migrants. Des divergences s’observaient également entre ce que les responsables pensaient au sujet des réalités auxquelles étaient confrontés les migrants dans leur pays et leur situation réelle. Les idées des décideurs au sujet des questions de migration étaient en grande partie à l’image de l’opinion générale (des questions allant de l’influence de l’immigration sur les services sociaux aux idées sociétales et préjugés plus généraux à propos des migrants).

Nous présentons ci‐dessous quelques recommandations qui ressortent de cette étude :

- Amélioration de la collecte de données

a) Sensibiliser les responsables à l’importance d’un recensement régulier, fiable et ponctuel des migrants ;

b) Réunir les organes universitaires et responsables des statistiques régionaux pour trouver des moyens d’harmoniser la collecte de données et de partager les bonnes pratiques ;

c) Répondre plus particulièrement à la nécessité de données


xxi

désagrégées, notamment dans le cadre d’une analyse détaillée de l’impact socioéconomique de la migration sur les salaires, la répartition des revenus, les envois d’argent Sud‐Sud, la santé et les droits des migrants ;

d) Répondre à l’absence d’unités de collecte de données centralisées capables de rassembler des renseignements auprès d’autres agences.

- Partage et diffusion des données sur la migration

a) Sensibiliser les responsables de divers ministères à la nécessité de réagir de manière audacieuse au manque de données et d’informations, tout en accordant une plus grande priorité aux questions de migration dans le débat politique à l’échelle de la Communauté des Caraïbes (CARICOM) ;

b) Rehausser la priorité des questions de migration afin de s’assurer que les ressources financières, techniques et humaines mises à contribution sont suffisantes pour que la réforme stratégique puisse devenir une réalité à moyen et à long terme.

- Changement d’orientation

a) Promouvoir une participation/consultation plus large et plus soutenue de la société civile en ce qui concerne les politiques par

le biais d’assemblées publiques locales, d’une interaction entre les organisations non gouvernementales (ONG) et les ministères et de forums de discussion ;

b) Sensibiliser les responsables des principaux organes, comme les ministères de la Sécurité nationale, à l’importance des questions de migration et au lien entre migration et développement, et réorienter les responsables vers l’importance des recherches en vue d’une amélioration des politiques ;

c) Assurer une réforme complète de la politique d’immigration basée sur les secteurs économiques prioritaires et les besoins en main‐d’œuvre ;

d) Mettre au point une politique bien définie en matière d’immigration, qui détermine les compétences que le pays concerné s’efforce d’attirer, et assurer une mise en œuvre plus rigoureuse des conditions visées par la loi sur l’immigration ;

e) Renforcer la surveillance aux frontières afin de limiter l’infiltration de migrants clandestins et renforcer la collaboration avec l’appareil de sécurité régional et international en vue de prévenir la traite des êtres humains ;


xxii

f) Mettre au point une politique axée sur les réfugiés, qui respecte les engagements pris dans les conventions internationales qui protègent les droits humains des réfugiés.

- Le CSME et la mobilité des travailleurs

a) Amener l’ensemble des pays qui participent au CSME à ratifier la législation relative aux séjours de six mois ;

b) Amener les gouvernements de la région à renouveler leur attachement à l’esprit et à la lettre du CSME ;

c) Faire face aux anomalies dans les pratiques à l’égard des migrants qui sont discriminatoires et qui vont à l’encontre du traité régissant la mobilité des travailleurs conclu dans le cadre du CSME ;

d) Réduire la bureaucratie dans le processus de demande de certificats de compétences visés par le CSME ;

e) Veiller à ce que les unités de mise en œuvre du CSME soient pleinement actives et parfaitement équipées dans tous les pays participants (méthodes de saisie et de collecte de données appropriées, entre autres).


xxiii

Resumo executivo

Este estudo destina‐se a iniciar um debate sobre a migração nas Caraíbas baseado numa perspectiva ampla, incluindo as muitas causas e impactos da migração intra‐regional.

Causas da migração

Foram identificados mais factores de atracção do que de repulsão como motivadores da migração intra‐regional. As diferenças em termos de perspectivas económicas, sobretudo as diferenças de salários e rendimentos, foram consideradas factores de atracção para os imigrantes em Trinidad e Tobago e Barbados, ao passo que a relativa estabilidade económica e a política de migração hereditária foram consideradas importantes factores de atracção para os migrantes da República Dominicana para Saint Kitts e Nevis.

Impactos da migração sobre o país de destino

Relativamente às vantagens económicas para os países de destino, os migrantes introduziram conjuntos de competências muito procuradas no território, sobretudo no sector da construção e da função pública, complementando a falta de competências locais. Os migrantes

regulares contribuem através de impostos e pagamentos à segurança social.

Impactos da migração sobre os migrantes e as suas famílias

Determinou‐se que o impacto da migração para Trinidad e Tobago era mínimo para as famílias dos imigrantes. Os níveis de acesso a serviços e o tratamento geral dos imigrantes dependiam em grande medida da sua nacionalidade, sendo que os migrantes irregulares, sobretudo os migrantes de países africanos, foram sujeitos a discriminação e tratamento incorrecto por parte do Estado. Um grande impacto mencionado foi o custo da migração.

A maioria dos migrantes lamentou a fraca implementação das medidas estipuladas pelo Mercado e Economia Únicos das Caraíbas (CSME) e considerou que grande parte da dificuldade em aceder aos benefícios inerentes ao CSME resultava dos entraves federais ao correcto funcionamento das leis do CSME.

Verificou‐se que a discriminação se baseava em grande parte na nacionalidade: os migrantes de países mais desfavorecidos eram tratados de forma pior do que os migrantes de países mais


xxiv

desenvolvidos. Verificou‐se que os cidadãos nacionais com um menor nível de qualificação tinham mais tendência a tratar mal os cidadãos não nacionais, independentemente da origem dos não nacionais. Não foram comunicadas dificuldades significativas quando as famílias se mudaram para Saint Kitts e Nevis.

Os não nacionais não enfrentaram resistência na aquisição de capital ou no estabelecimento da sua base económica (por exemplo, aquisição de propriedade, acesso a serviços financeiros, e assim por diante).

O forte sentimento nacionalista costuma traduzir‐se em xenofobia ou formas mais tácitas de discriminação contra os não nacionais, embora o tratamento geral seja relativo a outras variáveis, tais como nacionalidade, estatuto socio‐económico ou etnia.

Conclusões do inquérito

Os dados obtidos do inquérito dos decisores políticos sugerem que apesar de existir conhecimento da importância mais ampla das questões relacionadas com a migração para o desenvolvimento dos países sujeitos ao estudo de caso, pouco foi feito até ao momento para sensibilizar os responsáveis quanto à importância da enumeração regular, fiável e atempada da migração. Ocorreu também alguma divergência entre

o que os responsáveis pensam das realidades que os migrantes nos seus países enfrentam e a situação real dos migrantes. Muito do que os decisores políticos pensavam sobre as questões relativas à migração refectiam a opinião pública geral, em questões desde o impacto dos migrantes na função pública às percepções sociais mais amplas e preconceitos relativamente aos migrantes.

Seguem‐se algumas recomendações derivadas do estudo:

- Recolha de dados melhorada

a) Sensibilizar os responsáveis para a importância da enumeração regular, fiável e atempada da migração;

b) Reunir os organismos estatísticos e académicos da região para se concentrarem em meios destinados a harmonizar a recolha de dados e partilhar melhores práticas;

c) Prestar especial atenção à necessidade de dados desdobrados, em particular para a análise cuidadosa do impacto socio‐económico da migração nos salários, distribuição de rendimentos, remessas Sul‐Sul, género, saúde e direitos dos migrantes;

d) Abordar a ausência de unidades de recolha de dados centralizadas capazes de reunir conhecimentos de outras entidades.


xxv

- Partilha e divulgação de dados sobre a migração

a) Sensibilizar os responsáveis em vários ministérios relativamente à necessidade de abordar agressivamente a deficiência de dados e informações, elevando a prioridade das questões relacionadas com a migração no debate político no âmbito da Comunidade Caribenha (CARICOM);

b) Elevar a prioridade das questões relacionadas com a migração para assegurar o envolvimento dos recursos financeiros, técnicos e humanos adequados para que a reforma política possa tornar‐se uma realidade a médio ou longo prazo.

- Mudança de políticas

a) Assegurar um envolvimento/uma consulta mais amplos e mais sustentados com a sociedade civil relativamente a políticas através de reuniões nos Municípios, interacção entre organizações não governamentais (ONG), ministérios governamentais e fóruns de debate;

b) Sensibilizar a liderança das principais entidades, tais como os Ministérios da Segurança Nacional, relativamente à importância das questões da migração, a relação entre migração e desenvolvimento

e reorientação da liderança tendo em conta a importância da investigação para uma melhor elaboração de políticas;

c) Assegurar uma reforma abrangente da política de imigração com base nos sectores económicos prioritários e nas necessidades laborais;

d) Desenvolver uma política de imigração correctamente articulada capaz de identificar os conjuntos de competências que o país individual procura atrair e implementar com maior rigor as medidas estipuladas pela Lei relativa à imigração;

e) Reforçar as patrulhas fronteiriças para impedir a infiltração de migrantes irregulares e assegurar uma melhor colaboração com o sistema de segurança regional e internacional para travar o tráfico de pessoas;

f) Desenvolver uma política de refugiados específica que honre o compromisso para com as convenções internacionais, no sentido de proteger os direitos humanos dos refugiados.

- CSME e mobilidade laboral

a) Ratificar a legislação em permanências de seis meses por todos os países que participam no CSME;


xxvi

b) Renovar o compromisso para com o carácter e espírito do CSME por parte dos governos da região;

c) Abordar anomalias na prática da imigração que sejam discriminatórias e que sejam contrárias ao Tratado que rege a mobilidade humana no âmbito do CSME;

d) Reduzir a burocracia no processo de candidatura para os certificados de competências CSME;

e) Assegurar que as unidades de implementação do CSME estão totalmente activas e equipadas em todos os países participantes, incluindo métodos adequados de introdução e recolha de dados.


1

I. Introduction: Rationale for choosing study countries

Three case studies have been chosen, namely Barbados, Trinidad and Tobago and Saint Kitts and Nevis. In a report by the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) (Pizarro, 2005), Trinidad and Tobago, the US Virgin Islands and Barbados were identified as three of the five countries hosting the greatest number of migrant from the subregion. Barbados is a major final destination for migrants from Guyana, Trinidad and Tobago and member states of the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS) because of a perceived robust economy, overall high standard of living and a well‐developed social services system. Barbados is also the highest ranked Caribbean country on the Human Development Index, which acts as a major contributing factor to its position as a receiving country for other migrants (UNDP, 2013). Shortages in that country’s health sector have led to a high intake of trained nurses from Saint Vincent and the Grenadines. In fact, a CARICOM report (Brown et al., 2010) identified that “Saint Vincent and the Grenadines has embarked on an active policy of training more nurses than are needed nationally for the external labour market.” This is a similar strategy to a policy approach elaborated by the researcher Patsy Lewis (2011) with respect to training

of Jamaican nurses who want to move abroad.

Another characteristic of migration in Barbados is that the country attracts a significant number of expatriates from the United Kingdom, Canada and the United States. ln fact, data indicate that 91 per cent of the 422 long‐term work permits issued in Barbados in 2009 were for “Third Country Nationals” (Brown et al., 2010). In large part this can be attributed to the number of international business companies and international agencies headquartered in Barbados, such as the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations Subregional Office for the Caribbean (FAO/SLAC), the Inter‐American Development Bank (IADB) and the Inter‐American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture (IICA), among others. Expatriates from the North Atlantic also have homes and significant investments in the island or are involved in the country’s well‐developed tourism industry, based on a long‐standing “tradition of social peace and stability” (Brown et al., 2010: 43).

Trinidad and Tobago is simultaneously a sending, receiving and transit country for migrants. Since the nineteenth century, the country received migrant workers from other


2

parts of the Caribbean, signaling that regional labour mobility has a long history. As a destination country, apart from the historical antecedents that have led to Trinidad and Tobago attracting migrants, geographical proximity to the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela has also fuelled a steady influx of migrants from South America. Traditionally migrants came from the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and Guyana, but in recent years they have been increasingly arriving from Colombia. The case of Trinidad and Tobago is particular: its unique ethnic composition of people of African, Indian, Chinese, European and Middle Eastern descent and varied combinations of these groupings allow for easier dissimulation of immigrants among the local population of Trinidad and Tobago population. Trinidad and Tobago has experienced a long‐term confluence of migration, which can be examined in terms of economics, growth and development (which trigger immigration from other countries) and finally, the pull from the North Atlantic for emigrants from the country.

Despite the influences of migration on various spheres of life in Trinidad and Tobago, it is paradoxical that there has been little documentation and research on the phenomenon and even fewer attempts at devising a national policy to effectively manage,

regulate and facilitate migration that is beneficial to the growth and development of a country whose strategic location, diverse ethnic population, energy resources and robust manufacturing sector and economic performance are factors that continue to make the country a major pole of migration in the wider Caribbean region. Not surprisingly, therefore, Trinidad and Tobago is host to some of the most diverse migrant groups, both intraregionally and in a wider South–South context.

The small OECS nation of Saint Kitts and Nevis offers the possibility of acquiring citizenship through investment and/or a direct contribution to the state towards the development of the country. It receives nationals from other OECS countries as well as migrants from the Dominican Republic. Saint Kitts and Nevis is an interesting case study due to its large share of return migrants and immigration of decedents of Kittitians who migrated abroad, largely to the Dominican Republic in the early to mid‐nineteen hundreds. Immigrants originating in the Dominican Republic who are the descendants of Kittitians are eligible for citizenship in Saint Kitts and Nevis.

The report will highlight differences in migrant profiles, where applicable, as well as make distinctions between the three case studies. For example, it highlights characteristics such


3

as substantial, diversified flows from outside the subregion, a phenomenon more prevalent in Trinidad and Tobago than in the other two countries of Barbados and Saint Kitts and Nevis where migration that is intra‐Caribbean may play a greater role, as in other smaller territories.

There are scant data concerning the development impacts of labour migration in the region. This is a worldwide phenomenon and not necessarily limited to the South–South context within the Caribbean. Migration has traditionally been used as a survival strategy for West Indians, with people moving to parts of the subregion where the availability of work and higher wages offer greater possibilities for migrants to improve their overall standard of living. The principal sectors involved include construction, agriculture, tourism and other service industries, manufacturing, civil service recruitment and the extractive industries.

The following chapters will proceed as follows: Chapter 2 will detail the methodology used in the study as well as the limitations that were confronted. Chapter 3 provides a literature review and an analysis of the current stock data on migration within the region. Chapter 4 presents findings from focus group discussions, and Chapter 5 details the results of the survey of policymakers. Chapter 6 broadly summarizes and concludes the report.


5

2. Methodology

2.1 Objectives

This study aims to initiate a discussion on migration within the Caribbean that is based on a broad perspective, inclusive of the many causes and impacts of intraregional migration. While priority is given to the impacts that are most relevant to the receiving country, the impacts on the sending country are also explored, with particular focus on the costs of migration to migrants and their families. Other issues of human rights are made central to this discussion, with a view to identifying how evidence‐oriented policies can best be developed to maximize the benefits of migration to both the receiving and sending countries while minimizing the associated costs.

From the foregoing perspective, the methodology involved an initial attempt at data collection based on a conceptual framework, which supports the proposed evidence‐oriented system, using three analytical dimensions:

a) The causes of migration;

b) The impacts of migration on receiving countries; and

c) The impacts of migration on migrants and their families.

A fourth dimension, the impact of migration on sending countries, would have provided a more robust conceptual framework, but was beyond the scope of and resource allocation to this study.

2.2 Methodology

The collection of primary data involved conducting a series of focus group meetings in each of the three study territories and subsequently online surveys with key policymakers in all three countries. The focus group meetings were successfully completed between November and December 2012, while the policymakers’ survey was carried out between January and March 2013.

Participants in the focus groups were selected using snowballing sampling techniques in Saint Kitts and Nevis and Trinidad and Tobago, and simple random sampling in Barbados. The snowballing method was appropriate for the size of the sampling frames that were available in Saint Kitts and Nevis and Trinidad and Tobago, and also worked most effectively, given the sensitive nature of the subject matter. Potential respondents were more likely to trust members of their own groups during the recruitment process, and so key group members/


6

leaders acted as focal points in the initial establishment of contact and throughout the execution of the meetings. Many of the groups were broadly represented by nationality‐based associations within the country of residence. However, in Saint Kitts and Nevis and Trinidad and Tobago, there were no centralized databases of association members. Another nuance was that representation by nationality was bifurcated along ethnic or religious lines, as was the case in Saint Kitts and Nevis, where the Guyanese community was represented by two distinct organizations: the Guyana Association of Saint Kitts and Nevis, which (in name) represented all Guyanese, but was in reality populated predominantly by Afro‐Guyanese; and the Hindu Society, which represented the larger constituency of Indo‐Guyanese in that territory. Since communication between these groups was not as fluid as within the main groups, participants had to be targeted separately from the two organizations. However, representation in the focus groups in Saint Kitts had a strong ethnic bias towards Afro‐Guyanese since the Guyana Association of Saint Kitts and Nevis showed a greater responsiveness and willingness to attend. Association heads were contacted in both Saint Kitts and Nevis, and were instrumental in recruiting enough members

from their respective groups. This contributed to the rich discussions that were had on both islands.

A very small number of migrant groups was represented in Trinidad; however, they were of diverse backgrounds. Immigrant nationalities represented were West African, South‐East Asian, Middle Eastern and Hispanic, but others were missing (for example, Chinese, Guyanese and other Caribbean migrants). Compared to the other territories studied, reaching migrants in Barbados was relatively easy, given that there was a central register of nationality‐based associations representing students at the Cave Hill campus of the University of the West Indies (UWI), and because of the relatively closer‐knit community of non‐national professionals working in Barbados. Recruitment was also greatly aided by the Shridath Ramphal Centre based at UWI.

Respondents to the policymakers’ survey were selected from key ministries and agencies (for example, central statistical offices, and ministries of labour, social development, and planning). Each organization’s or ministry’s effective head (in the case of the ministries, permanent secretaries and at statistical offices, directors of statistics) was contacted directly, and other respondents were recruited via snowballing.


7

2.3 Limitations of the research

There were distinct differences in the dynamic of the meetings held in Barbados as compared to those held in Saint Kitts and Nevis and Trinidad and Tobago; these differences were directly attributable to the composition of the groups. The participants in the focus groups in Barbados consisted of non‐nationals from elsewhere in the Caribbean who were mainly university students or professionals. In the case of Trinidad and Tobago, there was a greater variety of occupations, education levels and nationalities represented. The Saint Kitts and Nevis group showed the most homogeneity in terms of occupations and nationalities, but more variation in education levels. The questions asked among groups had to be adapted to the varying dynamics of the groups, while attempts were made to maintain consistency in the degree of relevance of the responses to the conceptual framework.

A clear limitation in conducting, and subsequently analysing, the focus group meeting discussions was that there was limited scope for comparisons of migrant experiences across countries, particularly for migrants facing extreme cases of discrimination or living below the poverty lines of their resident

countries. Another limitation was that some of the major constituent groups could not be reached for the study and therefore it was difficult to estimate to what extent the lived experiences of those who did participate were representative of the larger population.

The main data collection challenge was encountered during the survey of policymakers. Five to six key government agencies were targeted in each country for responses from at least five key policy‐oriented personnel. Bureaucracy proved to be a major barrier hindering contact with selected policymakers, and availability proved an equally difficult challenge in most cases, despite no discernible unwillingness to participate. In Nevis and Barbados, general elections running concurrently with the survey also added to the difficulties, as the preoccupation with election activities and the subsequent transition process rendered many targeted personnel unavailable.

Secondary data collection was also a major challenge that was anticipated, given the dearth of official data in the region, and also because of an apparent unwillingness to share available data, particularly in Trinidad and Tobago.


9

3. Desk review and discussion and analysis of data

3.1 Desk review: The study of South–South migration in the Caribbean

Conceptually, South–South migration refers to population transfers across the global South, including intraregional and interregional flows. The four primary categories examined in this study are labour mobility, student mobility, undocumented/irregular migration and to a lesser extent, parental migration. All areas of migration remain grossly under‐researched in the region, with the exception of external migration of Caribbean nationals to North America and Europe. In fact, there is a large body of empirical literature on migration of Caribbean populations to the North Atlantic (Pessar, 1996, 1997; Hernández, 2002; Duany, 2011). However, there is far less documentation of flows within the region or between regions in the South. Some notable exceptions are Wiltshire (1987), Thomas‐Hope (1992; 2009), Mills (2007). However, where such work does exist, it usually refers to specific types of migration. Some aspects include irregular migration and human trafficking (Thomas‐Hope, 2003; 2006); remittances (Orozco, 2002; 2003; 2004; Figueroa, 2009); brain drain (Schmid, 2003); parental migration and its effects on Caribbean families (Crawford‐Brown and Rattray,

1994; 2002; Bakker, Elings‐Pels and Reis, 2009; Jones et al., 2004); and CSME‐related migration (Wickham et al., 2004; Whyte‐Givans, 2009; Brown et al., 2010). Earlier studies in the 1990s focused primarily on the loss of human capital in the Commonwealth countries in the Caribbean and the implications for homeland societies from a development perspective (Maingot, 1991).

The lack of reliable data

Overall, the analysis of intraregional and South–South migration is constrained by a lack of available data. Some of the inherent difficulties include poor data collection systems, further compounded by a lack of financial and human resources; a lack of harmonization of data collection methods and where they do exist, a general policy of not sharing migration statistics as they are deemed a national security risk. Key sources of quantitative migration data can be derived from the following sources: World Bank Migration and Remittances Factbook (2011); national census reports; central statistical offices; the United Nations Department for Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (see UN DESA, 2006); ECLAC (2005); the Organisation for Economic


10

Co‐operation and Development (OECD, 2006); the 1991 Trinidad and Tobago Census for Population and Housing (CPHC); various CSME Units and CARICOM (Brown et al: 2010).

Outdated sources of information on the non‐native labour force in the Caribbean have resulted in a heavy reliance on the 1991 Trinidad and Tobago Census for Population and Housing (CPHC) migration data. Both the ECLAC report (2005) and research by Thomas‐Hope (2001) utilized CARICOM data from 1990, which has not been updated since. These statistics require systematic updating as most work on migration uses data that are more than two decades old and therefore do not reflect the dynamic changes in the migratory patterns that have taken place recently within the region.

Since the publication of the aforementioned CARICOM report (1991), a recent country‐specific report on migration has been completed for the Caribbean region (Brown et al., 2010). The assessment – investigating the impact of free movement of persons within the CSME framework – covered important issues such as the magnitude and characteristics of movement, the issuance of work permits, attitudes of constituent populations towards migrants, and challenges that migrants encounter. It concludes with recommendations for specific

member states. This is the most current and substantial evaluation of intraregional labour migration within the ambit of the CSME to date.

While the CARICOM report (Brown et al., 2010) makes reference to inconsistencies in the free movement of persons under the CSME, it omits mention of the amnesty under the Thompson administration during which several Guyanese nationals were reportedly expelled from the country in 2009. Failure to regularize their status by December 1, 2009 meant expulsion for Caribbean migrants, which ran counter to “the spirit of the regional integration movement” (Antillean, 2008).

Despite the limited availability of empirical migration data for Barbados, there have been various projects which document migrant experiences. Barbadian filmmaker Annalee Davis’ short film “On the Map” (2006–2007) explored the negative sentiment of Caribbean nationals towards immigrants from within the subregion, with particular emphasis on the treatment of Indo‐Guyanese. In addition, Marcia Burrowes (2009) from the University of the West Indies, Cave Hill focused on return migration of Barbadian nationals from the United Kingdom. Researcher Thomas‐Hope (1992) offers a comparative study of the migratory experience of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Jamaica


11

and Barbados, taking into account topography, internal migration and the impact of disparities on the quality of education and resources for these three small island nations. While the work may be seminal, it is now more than two decades old and there are no recent publications of a similar nature.

In the absence of regularly updated migration data generated from within the region, there is a heavy reliance on statistics compiled by external sources. In the case of Trinidad and Tobago, more than 25.5 per cent of the non‐national population comes from outside the Caribbean (Pizarro, 2005). The country hosts the largest concentration of immigrants, with 35.4 per cent of the total stock of Caribbean migrants in the region. The Central Statistical Office (CSO) in Trinidad generates National Census Reports. The 2011 National Census Report, however, provides limited information on migration. Of significance is the increase in the foreign‐born population from 41,753 in 2000 to 48,781 based on the 2011 Population and Housing Census, representing an increase of 16.8 per cent (CSO, 2011: 23). The census also notes, that “[d]espite this increase, foreign‐born persons as a percentage of the total population were virtually unchanged, moving from 3.3 per cent in 2000 to 3.7 per cent in 2011”(CSO, 2011: 23).

Recent data from the World Bank (2011) list Grenada and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines among the top source countries of immigration to Trinidad and Tobago. Based on data from the World Bank (2011), Trinidad and Tobago’s immigrant population stock was 34,000 or 2.6 per cent of the population. This represents a decline from 4.6 per cent of Trinidad and Tobago’s population two decades prior to 2010. The 2011 National Census Report highlighted a decline in immigrants from the Caribbean to Trinidad and Tobago. Foreign‐born residents from Caribbean countries stood at 65.5 per cent in 2000, dropping to 55.6 per cent in 2011. Furthermore, the report also noted “apparent reductions in the proportions born in Caribbean countries such as Grenada, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines and Barbados in the intercensal period”, with the exception of Guyana (CSO, 2011: 23).

In the absence of census data for Saint Kitts and Nevis, information on the primary migrant groups is derived from World Bank Statistics. These include migrants from the United States, Guyana, the Dominican Republic, the US Virgin Islands, the United Kingdom, Antigua and Barbuda, Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago (World Bank, 2011: 229). Of particular importance is the increasing numbers of Dominican

migrants to Saint Kitts and Nevis as well as other OECS territories. The major studies to date in this area have been conducted by Jessica Byron‐Reid (2000). Her work focuses on the historical and contemporary South–South labour migration between the Dominican Republic and both Antigua and Barbuda and her native Saint Kitts and Nevis.

Main trends in migration

Historically, the then British Guiana, as Guyana was known under British colonial control, and Trinidad and Tobago attracted immigrants from throughout the Caribbean due to the higher wages newly emancipated slaves received from planters in these two territories. Cuba drew workers in the sugar industry from the English, Spanish, French and Dutch Caribbean in the mid‐nineteenth century and by 1926, there were 90,000 migrants from the Anglophone Caribbean (Chailloux and Gâomez Navia, 2005). Nowadays, Dominican, Saint Lucian and Haitian nationals work seasonally in Martinique and Guadeloupe in the harvesting of the sugar cane crop in the French Antilles. Vincentian, Grenadian and Guyanese hagglers sell their agricultural produce in Trinidad. This type of migration, which is primarily “circular”, is particularly hard to document as migrants are largely transient and use informal systems to move back and forth.

Historically, the migration of people of mainly African descent from countries in the English and French‐speaking Caribbean to the Spanish‐speaking Caribbean and parts of Central and South America was linked to the intraregional demand for labour in the Americas. A significant number of migrants worked on the construction of the railway system in Costa Rica and in the banana industry in Nicaragua in the late nineteenth century and the first three decades of the twentieth century (Koch, 1977). Migrants from Barbados, Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago, Guadeloupe and Martinique found work in Panama during the construction of the Panama Canal from the early 1900s and much later in the maintenance of the Canal as well as the upgrading of the country’s military installations during World War II (Purcell, 1993). Some 19,900 Barbadians, or 10 per cent of the population at the time, went as labourers to Panama.1 By 1907, 7,500 Guadeloupeans and Martiniquans were also recruited. In contrast, Jamaicans working on the Isthmus were employed as artisans, and not as labourers as were the remainder of nationals from other parts of the Caribbean such as Haiti, and Saint Lucia.

1 Information accessed from the Panama Canal Website: www.pancanal.com/eng/history/history/american.html.

http://www.pancanal.com/eng/history/history/american.html

http://www.pancanal.com/eng/history/history/american.html


13

Jamaicans were recruited by the United Fruit Company of Boston to fill labour shortages in the banana plantations in Livingston, Guatemala; La Costa del Oro, Honduras; San Andrés and Providencia, Colombia; and Limón, Costa Rica.

During the tourism boom in the 1970s and 1980s, migrants from the Eastern Caribbean found work in the hotel industry in the US Virgin Islands, the Bahamas and the Cayman Islands (Thomas‐Hope, 2003). The oil boom in Trinidad and Tobago drew migrants from across the Caribbean. Later, with the expansion of the natural gas industry, other migrants from the region were absorbed into the energy sector as well. The discovery of oil in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela led to the arrival of a significant number of migrants from the Caribbean, including Grenada and Curaçao. However, migrants from Trinidad and Tobago formed the majority of workers in the Venezuelan petroleum industry at the time.

In the contemporary context, Trinidad and Tobago’s position as an energy giant in the region has allowed for significant investment in various sectors throughout the region, resulting in the movement of expatriates from Trinidad and Tobago to other Caribbean countries to work in the banking, insurance, retail and manufacturing sectors and the hotel industry. The acquisition of

a number of banks in Latin America and the Caribbean by Republic Bank, First Citizens Bank and Royal Bank of Canada Trinidad and Tobago (formerly RBTT) has provided employment for nationals of Trinidad and Tobago at the level of corporate management in Barbados, Jamaica, the Dominican Republic, Costa Rica and in other countries where these banks have established a commercial presence. Republic Bank acquired the Barbados National Bank (BNB), and also operates in the Cayman Islands, Guyana, and Grenada. First Citizens Bank offers a range of financing and investment opportunities in Barbados, Saint Vincent, Saint Lucia and Costa Rica.

Trinidad and Tobago conglomerates like the Ansa McAL Group of Companies have also spread their operations in many countries across the region. The Ansa McAL parent company in Trinidad and Tobago opened a subsidiary in Barbados which employs 950 people in sectors as diverse as manufacturing, brewing, insurance, finance, real estate, media, shipping, trading/distribution, automotive and industrial equipment retailing. It also has subsidiaries in Saint Kitts and Nevis, Grenada, Guyana, Saint Lucia and the United States. Other groups such as Neal and Massy Holdings Ltd. have subsidiaries in Barbados, Guyana, the Eastern Caribbean, the Bahamas and the Dutch Caribbean.


14

Finally, there has been an influx of migrants from the Dominican Republic to the Eastern Caribbean and in the Dutch territories. Haitians are present in significant numbers in the Dominican Republic, the Bahamas, Turks and Caicos and Dominica. Much less is known about the specific characteristics of migrants, in particular relating to gender, ethnicity, socioeconomic background, educational levels, and so forth.

Student migration in Trinidad and Tobago

Apart from labour migration, there is significant student migration within the subregion. Migrants move with dependents who are enrolled in primary and secondary schools. Native populations fear that migrants will place a burden on social services, particularly on the health and education sectors. With respect to Barbados, the CARICOM report (Brown et al., 2010) notes that natural population decline in Barbados had not affected the availability of school places. Empirical data point to these fears being largely unfounded, as the Ministry of Education in Barbados revealed that “[f]rom 2006–2007, 2.3 per cent of students in primary and secondary schools were CARICOM nationals, i.e. out of 40,276 students, 930 are CARICOM nationals. Additionally, the

CARICOM report (Brown et al., 2010: 53) showed support for claims “that there was adequate space in schools for the school‐aged population” because of the decline in the rate of growth in the Barbadian population as a result of lower birth rates.

The statistics from a 2001 UNESCO report showed that Trinidad and Tobago had a total of 301 students within the Caribbean (UNESCO, 2001). This figure ranked Trinidad and Tobago second behind Jamaica, which had a total of 388 students. Furthermore, Trinidad and Tobago had the largest enrolment compared to other Caribbean nationals studying within the country (720 students out of a total of 1,969 students). This is because of the existence of the principal campuses of the University of the West Indies (UWI) across three territories: Trinidad and Tobago, Barbados and Jamaica. Trinidad and Tobago is both a recipient country and a destination country for other Caribbean students, however, what the data do not show is the number of students that leave or remain after their course of study is completed.

Despite the fact that the St. Augustine Campus of the UWI is located in Trinidad and Tobago, its students also study in other countries of the Caribbean. In the fiscal year 2010/2011, the Government of Trinidad and Tobago spent more than TTD 97 million (or approximately USD 15 million) on training for medical


15

and law students at UWI Cave Hill, Barbados; UWI Mona, Jamaica; and St. George’s University, Grenada; in addition to UWI St. Augustine Campus. The decision of the Government of Trinidad and Tobago to grant free tertiary education in 2006, and the opening of the University of Trinidad and Tobago greatly expanded the means by which nationals could study within the country and regionally.

With regard to hispanophone migrants, Reis (2009) analysed Venezuelan student migration to Trinidad, a phenomenon which has a long historical context, but which took on contemporary significance during the Chávez regime. Reis’ study “of the Venezuelan student population in 2005, revealed that over 73 per cent of those interviewed had some level of tertiary education and training.” (2009: 44) Additional research would be required to ascertain the level of skills that South American migrants possess in order to maximize their potential benefit to growth and development of the country.

Areas for future research include examination of marriage records over the past few decades as an indication of the intermarriage between nationals of Trinidad and Tobago and of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. This is important, as there is a growing class of bilingual nationals, stemming from the

offspring of these unions. In the long run, proficiency in Spanish can place bilingual nationals in a more favorable position for jobs, a tendency that will only be further compounded by the fact that the project to implement Spanish as a second language in Trinidad and Tobago has been officially discontinued by the current administration.

Undocumented and irregular migration

Trinidad and Tobago is a major pole of attraction for both regular and irregular migrants from the subregion and further afield, including South America, Asia, Africa and the Middle East. In recent years, there has been an influx of Colombian migrants to Trinidad and Tobago. Internal conflict, protracted war and violence in Colombia have resulted in 2 million internally displaced persons (IDPs) (Cholewinski et al., 2006). As a result, many undocumented Colombian women have been entering Trinidad and Tobago, mainly for work in the sex industry. Absolute numbers of Latin American migrants are not known. The lack of reliable quantitative data also does not permit a comparative analysis between the Caribbean migrant stock and hispanophone, non‐CARICOM migrants such as Venezuelans, Dominicans and Colombians.


16

Over the last decade, there has been a sharp increase in the number of African migrants in Trinidad and Tobago, many of whom have been absorbed in private security firms across the country. In 2008, there were numerous media reports concerning the arrest of irregular migrants from Ghana and Nigeria and deportations of Nigerians. The plight of some of these African migrants was highlighted by the Traditional African National Association in 2010 and the local Emancipation Support Committee in Trinidad and Tobago in 2011. Concerns were raised about the treatment of African nationals at the immigration detention centre in Aripo, Trinidad, as well as the length of their detention, ranging from two to ten years.

The visible presence of Chinese in the Caribbean is in keeping with the People’s Republic of China’s investment and expansion overseas. The rationale for outward migration lies in the fact that the Chinese Government cannot provide jobs for all of its 1.3 billion people. Therefore, it has encouraged the migration of Chinese labourers to work on its projects in the Caribbean and elsewhere (Sanders, 2012).

Regarding the recent influx of migrants from the Middle East to Trinidad, settled compatriots from the first wave of immigration established the bond required by the immigration

authorities for newcomers. Due to the close links maintained between the local Arab community with relatives in the Syrian Arab Republic and Lebanon, it can be surmised that sending for family members in the “homeland” has not been too difficult a task.

Thomas‐Hope (2003) noted that irregular migrants from the Caribbean region used Trinidad and Tobago as a transit point en route to the United States or the United Kingdom. The 2008 Human Rights Report for Trinidad and Tobago (US Department of State, 2008) noted that there were 18 new asylum‐seekers and 115 refugees in Trinidad and Tobago as of 31 October 2008.

Significant migrant inflows from Africa, Asia and the Middle East have not provoked overt anti‐migrant sentiment in Trinidad and Tobago, nor have they resulted in acts of xenophobia or violence towards migrants. NGOs are often the first responders to the needs of irregular migrants. If the needs of irregular migrants are not adequately addressed, it could lead to a growing underclass of citizens who live on the fringes of society in squalid conditions, with limited access to better paid employment, and who are and are subject to discrimination, exploitation, abuse, xenophobia and prejudice.


17

The impact of migration on children

Finally, parental absence due to South–South migration has implications for family life and leads to social dislocation, particularly in terms of the effects on “children left behind”. The issue has been analysed primarily in relation to parental absence as a consequence of extraregional rather than intraregional migration. One study commissioned by UNICEF (2009) examined the phenomenon of “children left behind” as a development problem in the CARICOM region, focusing on case studies of the Bahamas, Dominica, Belize and Guyana. Jamaican researcher Claudette Crawford‐Brown coined the term “barrel children” (1994) to refer to children and adolescents left behind by parents who had migrated and substituted parental care with gifts, money, toys and clothing sent in barrels.

Responses to the psychosocial needs of children in distress as a result of parental migration are compromised by insufficient studies of the phenomenon. While the majority of work has centered on the experiences of Jamaican youth, a seminal study by researchers from Trinidad and Tobago (Jones et al., 2004) and a survey of children of migrant parents conducted by the Central Statistical Office in Dominica (2005) add to the pool of research on this topic.

3.2 Analysis of stock data

The following sections provide an overview of data gathered from key sources on migration trends within the Caribbean during the last five years. The sections focus broadly on the Caribbean and Latin America, and more narrowly, on the three case studies (Barbados, Saint Kitts and Nevis and Trinidad and Tobago). The Caribbean countries that are referred to are the 16 countries belonging to the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) Group of States, namely: Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Cuba, Dominica, the Dominican Republic, Grenada, Guyana, Haiti, Jamaica, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Suriname and Trinidad and Tobago. Countries outside of this grouping are referred to because of their importance as origin countries of extraregional migration into the region, the main ones being India, China, the Syrian Arab Republic and Lebanon.

The current report presents the results of analyses conducted with the best available primary data on migration in the region at this time. Given the limited availability of officially‐collected data in the region, this study serves an important function: firstly it establishes what current knowledge exists on a range of migration‐related issues within the region; and secondly, it acts


18

as a decisive means of estimating bilateral migration stocks between countries and sets up some working hypotheses on the determinants and socioeconomic implications of South–South migration, drawing on continuous data collection by international organizations (mostly the World Bank, and the United Nations). Also, using global estimates of flows of remittances, the study is able to make relatively accurate assumptions about the impact of remittances on income in sending countries. Although the data are preliminary, they provide close approximations of the prevailing realities in the region and allow us to make some broad conclusions about the welfare impact of South–South and intraregional migration. This lays an important foundation for further research, highlighting further gaps to be filled and noting details to be explored and better understood.

Context: Challenges with data and key migration trends

According to the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (UN DESA, 2009a), international migrants constituted 214 million or 3.1 per cent of the world’s population in 2010. Approximately 7 million of them were residents in Latin America and the Caribbean. This report contains

updated information on the migrant stocks of the three study countries. Migrant stocks in Barbados, Saint Kitts and Nevis and Trinidad and Tobago have grown consistently between 1990 and 2010, even though there was a marked decline in the rate of change in the annual flow of migrants in Barbados and Trinidad and Tobago between 1995 and 2010 and 2005 and 2010 respectively (but conversely, an acceleration in Saint Kitts and Nevis since 1995). However, all of the caveats on underlying bilateral migration data discussed in other studies on South–South migration2 necessarily apply to this study’s dataset.

It has been acknowledged that available data from the UN and World Bank on overall migrant stocks most likely underestimate migrant stocks within the region, due to difficulties that arise from differing definitions of migrants across countries, lags between collection and reporting of census data, and underreporting/ lack of enumeration of irregular migration. Further difficulties arise on a global scale due to a lack of standardized definitions and common reporting standards, or inadequate adherence to the standards that do exist. This is most likely to be the case in countries within the Caribbean. During the

2 See Ratha D. and W. Shaw (2007), South-South Migration and Remittances. Working Paper, Development Prospects Group, World Bank.


19

course of this study, the necessity for reliance on externally generated data has emphasized the need for a major investment in migration data collection within the region, as well as to improve availability, timeliness, quality and cross‐country comparability.

Despite these challenges, the data used are the most comprehensive available and support some of the plausible assumptions that were made. One such assumption is that recent trends in intraregional migration have been dictated by the relative performance of Caribbean economies in the context of the global impact of the crisis of 2001, and even more so, following the 2008 worldwide crisis. Table 3.1 above compares the relative performance of the Caribbean on a number of growth and development indicators. Intraregional migrants are likely moving from countries with higher unemployment rates, lower real per capita GDP and lower levels

of human development. However, the differences between income, size of population, and the physical size of host countries would be relatively irrelevant in the context of intraregional migration in the Caribbean.

Data from the World Bank (2011: 27) indicate that in the Latin America and the Caribbean region, the top migration flows were between lower income states and the United States (for most anglophone emigrants) or between Latin American countries and Spain (for Spanish‐speaking emigrants). Gaps in bilateral migration data may miss major migration corridors between developing countries in the region, or between extraregional and regional countries. Some of the transitional flows from extraregional countries to the United States via the Caribbean may not be accounted for in the data.


20

Table 3.1: Selected country indicators in the Caribbean

Economy

Area (thou-sands,

hectares)

Popula-tion

(thou-sands)

Real GDP (Constant millions,

USD)

Real GDP per Capita (Constant

USD)

HDI* (2011)

Unemploy-ment rate (%)

2009–2010 2009 2010Trinidad and Tobago 513 1,344 14,040.74 10,446.98 0.760 5.3 5.9

Barbados 43 257 2,521.19 9,810.07 0.793 10.0 10.7Saint Kitts and Nevis 26 52 502.25 9,658.66 0.735 ‐ ‐

Dominica 75 67 417.81 6,235.92 0.724 ‐ ‐Grenada 34 104 559.00 5,374.96 0.748 25.0 ‐Saint Lucia 62 174 885.80 5,090.80 0.723 ‐ ‐Saint Vincent and the Grenadines

39 109 539.42 4,948.78 0.717 ‐ ‐

Cuba 10,989 11,203 49,586.71 4,426.20 0.776 1.7 2.5Belize 2,297 313 1,188.80 3,798.08 0.699 ‐ 23.3Dominican Republic 4,867 9,899 37,304.55 3,768.52 0.689 14.9 14.3

Jamaica 1,099 2,730 9,963.55 3,649.65 0.727 11.4 12.4Suriname 16,382 524 1,387.00 2,646.95 0.680 9.0 8.0Guyana 21,497 761 874.99 1,149.79 0.633 11.0 ‐Haiti 2,775 10,089 3,909.12 387.46 0.454 40.9 90.0

*Human Development Index

Source: Data from various sources: UN Human Development Report, 2010–2011, Individual Country Poverty Assessments.


21

Figure 3.1: Correlation between international migrant stocks and GDP per capita, 2010

Antigua and Barbuda

Republic

Grenada

Haiti

Saint Lucia

Suriname

Trinidad andTobago

0

5

10

15

20

25

- 5 10 15 20 25

Inte

rnat

iona

l mig

rant

s as a

% o

f loc

al

popu

latio

n

GDP per capita (USD 1,000s Constant 2,000 USD)

Bahamas

Belize

Dominican

Cuba

St Vincent and the Grenadines BarbadosDominica

St Kittsand Nevis

Venezuela

Jamaica(Bolivarian

Republic of)Guyana

Source: Data from the World Bank: World Development Indicators Database and Migration and Remittances Factbook, 2011.

Figure 3.2: Correlation between emigration rates of the tertiary educated population and GDP per capita, 2000

Bahamas

Antigua and Barbudas

Barbados

St Kitts and Nevis

St Lucia

Guyana

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

- 5 10 15 20 25

Emig

ratio

n ra

tes o

f ter

tiary

-edu

cate

d po

pula

tion

(% o

f ter

tiary

edu

cate

d po

pula

tion)

GDP per capita (USD 1,000s Constant 2,000 USD)

Dominican Republic

Jamaica

St Vincent and the

Grenadines

Cuba

Suriname Dominica

HaitiGrenada

Trinidad and Tobago

Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)

Source: Data from the World Bank: World Development Indicators Database and Migration and Remittances Factbook, 2011.


22

Figures 3.1 and 3.2, respectively, show the correlations between international migration stocks and GDP per capita and emigration of the tertiary‐educated population and GDP per capita. The result is intuitive and shows that there is a moderate positive correlation (0.49) between GDP per capita of host countries and their migrant stocks, suggesting (a priori at least) that higher relative GDP per capita of the destination countries positively influences migrants’ decision to move in the Caribbean (or into the Caribbean from other developing countries).

The correlation between skills emigration and GDP per capita was weak and negative, (‐0.24), suggesting that income alone may not be the decisive push factor influencing the mass emigration of tertiary educated Caribbean people out of the region. Other factors, such as access to human development opportunities, relative income earning potential and relatively better economic prospects may explain the high rate of emigration.

Antigua and Barbuda attracted the highest number of high‐income earners in the region. The Bahamas was a clear outlier in each case, but more interestingly, its higher GDP per capita levels allowed it to retain more than 60 per cent of its tertiary‐educated population. Conversely, the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela,

Cuba and the Dominican Republic retained most of their tertiary educated populations, despite having the lowest GDP per capital levels in the region.

The link between emigration rates and the potential to improve welfare through remittances and re‐importation of skills is of great significance for policy. Whether the net effect of this type of migration is an overall increase in welfare despite the effects of brain‐drain on the sending economy requires further research.

The Caribbean population and immigration

The UN (UN DESA, 2011) estimates the total population of the 16 ACP Caribbean States to be 38.5 million in 2010, with 80 per cent of the population residing in the Greater Caribbean, namely Cuba, the Dominican Republic and Haiti. Migrants to the region constitute two per cent of the population (or 771,000 migrants) (UN DESA 2011). Relative to their population size, Cuba and Haiti host the lowest proportion of migrants through emigration, with emigrants accounting for 0.1 and 0.3 per cent respectively (see figures 3.4 and 3.5), whereas the Dominican Republic hosts the largest migrant stock in the region in absolute terms, with an migrant population of


23

434,000 according to 2010 estimates (see figure 3.3). In term of size of migrants stocks, the Dominican Republic hosts the greatest number in the region, followed by Trinidad and Tobago, Suriname and the Bahamas. There is a significant migration corridor between Haiti and the Dominican Republic, understandable considering they are the only contiguous countries in the region. Estimates in 2005 put the number of Haitians living in the Dominican Republic at as much as 100,000, but Ratha and Shaw (2007) estimate that it could be substantially higher, due to the magnitude of irregular migration from Haiti to the Dominican Republic. Belize constitutes a transit point for Central American migration to Mexico, and finally to the United States, whereas Antigua and Barbuda, Grenada, Barbados, the Bahamas and Saint Kitts and Nevis are important receiving countries of intraregional migration (UN DESA, 2011).

The existing data reveal that the region is an important transit corridor for immigrants coming from outside the Caribbean en route to the United States or Europe, particularly from Latin America and, more recently, from West Africa to the United States (ACP Observatory, 2010). The preceding graphs also highlight the importance of intraregional mobility. In the Bahamas, 75 per cent of migrants were from the Caribbean in 2005, whereas in Barbados, this number was 67.2 per cent in the same year. One out of two migrants in Trinidad and Tobago came from other parts of the Caribbean (UN DESA, 2011).


24

Figure 3.3: International migrant stock, 2005 and 2010

Saint Kitts and Nevis

500,000

Dominica

Guyana

Grenada

Cuba

Barbados

Jamaica

Haiti

Suriname

Trinidad and Tobago

Dominican Republic

2010 2005

50,0000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000 450,000

Saint Vincent and the Grenadines

Saint Lucia

Source: Data from the World Bank World Development Indicators Database.

Figure 3.4: Stock of emigrants as percentage of the population, 2010

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Note: Thestockofemigrantsasapercentageofpopulationisdefinedastheratioofemigrantsof a country to the population, not the sum of population and migrants. Because of this definition,thisratiomayexceed100percentincertaincases.

Source: Data from the World Bank World Development Indicators database.


25

Figure 3.5: Stock of emigrants as percentage of the population, 2005 and 2010

0

5

10

15

20

25

2005

2010

Note: Thestockofemigrantsasapercentageofpopulationisdefinedastheratioofemigrantsof a country to the population, not the sum of population and migrants. Because of this definition,thisratiomayexceed100percentincertaincases.

Source: Data from the World Bank World Development Indicators database.

According to the World Bank, one of every two migrants residing in Caribbean countries is an intraregional migrant (has originated in another Caribbean country). Figures 3.4 and 3.5 illustrate emigration and immigration trends within the region between 2005 and 2010. Dominica, Grenada, Saint Kitts and Nevis and Guyana are the top sending countries within the region (according to 2010 World Bank estimates) whereas Antigua and Barbuda, Belize,

Grenada and the Bahamas are the top receiving countries. Migrants constitute just under 25 per cent of Antigua and Barbuda’s population, whereas Dominica’s emigration rate is 104 per cent based on the ratio of emigrants to its population. Despite that fact, immigration into Dominica had increased between 2005 and 2010, as it did in Antigua and Barbuda, Grenada, Barbados, and to a lesser extent, in Saint Kitts and Nevis.


26

Figure 3.6: Average annual rate of population change (per 1,000 of the population), 2005

‐5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Net Migration Rate 2005 Crude Birth Rate 2005

Source: Data from the World Bank, World Development Indicators Database and the UN Statistical Database.

Figure 3.7: Average annual rate of population change (per 1,000 of the population), 2010

‐10

‐5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Net Migration Rate 2010 Crude Birth Rate 2010

Source: Data from the World Bank, World Development Indicators Database and the UN Statistical Database.


27

Figures 3.6 and 3.7 illustrate the rates of population change in the Caribbean from 2005 to 2010, including rates of net migration and crude birth rates. Migration into the region is expected to play an increasing role in the demographic future of most Caribbean nations.

Despite this, on average, net migration in the Caribbean will have little impact on overall population change, as net migration rates are negative in most countries, whereas birthrates are relatively high. Migration seems to have the least impact on population in countries whose natural population growth rates are falling (as demonstrated by a reduction in crude birth rates between 2005 and 2010), such as Cuba, Guyana, Saint Lucia and Suriname. Net migration was negative in all Caribbean countries in 2011, and fell to negative levels between 2005 and 2011 in Suriname which, along with the Bahamas, was the

only other country with a positive net migration rate in 2005. Extraregional migrant source countries (Syrian Arab Republic, Lebanon, India, West African countries and some Latin countries) also have negative net migration rates (see figure 3.8), demonstrating that, similar to the Caribbean, there is, in general, mass movement out of those countries. The Syrian Arab Republic, Lebanon, India and West Africa are significant contributors of extraregional migrants to Trinidad and Tobago.

Accurate projections of the change in net migration in the next 20 years are difficult to make due to the volatility of migration flows. A priori, based on the assumption of a continuation of trends that occurred over the last ten years, intraregional migration in the Caribbean, as well as extraregional migration into the region are expected to continue to rise at a moderate pace.


28

Figure 3.8: Net migration rate (per 1,000 of the population), 2005, 2010, 2011

-15 -10 -5 0 5 10

Bahamas, The

Barbados

Belize

Bolivia (Plurinational State of)

Brazil

China

Colombia

Congo, Democratic Republic of

Cuba

Dominican Republic

Gambia, The

Grenada

Guyana

Haiti

Honduras

India

Jamaica

Lebanon

Nigeria

Saint Lucia


Suriname

Syrian Arab Republic

Trinidad and Tobago


2005

2010

2011

Source: Data from the World Bank, Migration and Remittances Factbook, 2011.


29

Figure 3.9: Females as percentage of immigrants, 2010

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Source: Data from the World Bank Development Indicators.

Female migrants represented almost half of the total international migrant stock in 2010 globally, and this changed little over the previous 20 years. Women and girls accounted for 45.3 per cent of migrants in developing countries, compared to 51.1 per cent in developed countries. Female migrants also outnumbered males in Latin America.

Indeed, figure 3.9 shows that for 7 of the Caribbean receiving countries (Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Grenada, Trinidad and Tobago, Belize, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, and Saint Lucia) females account for more than 50 per cent of migrants, and women make up more than 60 per cent of the migrant population in Barbados. Male migrants tended to outnumber females in countries which received proportionally the lowest number of migrants in

the region (Haiti, the Dominican Republic and Cuba). This reflects a gendered dimension in patterns of human mobility in the region. Further research into the differences between how and why males and females choose to migrate is needed in the Caribbean.

Skilled emigration

The Caribbean has been highlighted as one of the regions of the world with the highest emigration rates of skilled/ tertiary‐educated individuals. In terms of emigration in general, Dominica, Grenada, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Guyana, Antigua and Barbuda and Barbados are among the top ten emigration countries in the world (World Bank, 2010). Emigration of the tertiary‐educated population or of persons migrating for the purpose


30

of tertiary education is well covered in the literature, with the majority of emigration for tertiary education from the Caribbean being South–North: This is notwithstanding a growing rate of intraregional migration for tertiary education, facilitated by the presence of the University of the West Indies in three major locations in the region (Barbados, Jamaica and Trinidad and

Tobago) as well as other non‐regional universities such as St. Georges’ University in Grenada, the University of Technology (UTech) in Jamaica, and the University of Trinidad and Tobago. Student mobility in the region is an essential function of human development potential within the region.

Figure 3.10: Emigration rate of tertiary educated population in Caribbean countries (% of tertiary educated population), 2000

0 20 40 60 80 100


Dominican Republic

Cuba

Bahamas, The

Barbados

Dominica

Suriname

Antigua and Barbuda

Saint Lucia


Trinidad and Tobago

Haiti

Grenada


Jamaica

Guyana

Source: Data from the World Bank Migration and Remittances Factbook, 2011.


31

Figure 3.11: Stock of migrants from the Caribbean currently living in OECD countries

United States of America, 9,177

United Kingdom, 1,582

Canada, 1,835

Caribbean, 340 Elsewhere, 83

Not Stated, 2,437

Source: DatafromtheTrinidadandTobagoCentralStatisticalOffice,PopulationCensus,2011.

Figure 3.10 illustrates the stock of tertiary‐educated emigrants from the Caribbean residing in OECD countries at the time of data collection. These data reflect the current pool of tertiary‐educated nationals of the countries depicted, but do not provide information on the actual flow of tertiary‐educated individuals out of their home countries – a variable that should be monitored more closely.

Regarding extraregional emigrants, their status abroad raises significant policy considerations with respect to bilateral and multilateral policies to guarantee the human rights of migrants as well as their access to basic rights such as a decent standard

of living, decent employment, educational opportunities for themselves and their dependents, food security and health. Instruments designed to protect those rights worldwide have been adopted at the UN level and ratified to varying extents across the world (UN DESA, 2011).

Intraregional emigration represents just 4 per cent of the total emigrant stock from the Caribbean (Ponce, 2010) on paper, intraregional migration is facilitated on by Caribbean Community (CARICOM) Free Movement Protocols (established in 1989) and the Caribbean Single Market and


32

Economy (CSME). However, out of the 16 Caribbean ACP states, only 12 are currently full members of both the CSME and CARICOM (Ponce, 2010).

In terms of the sectors that are most affected by skilled emigration, the health sector was highlighted as being particularly affected, particularly in countries such as Jamaica and Trinidad

and Tobago, where the emigration of nurses has widened the gap between supply and demand. The emigration rate of trained physicians from the region is also high according to World Bank estimates in 2010.

Table 3.2: Top destination and source countries of emigrants and immigrants of the Caribbean

Top destination countries Top source countries2010 2010

Antigua and Barbuda

United States, Philippines, US Virgin Islands, United Kingdom, Canada, Netherlands Antilles, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Saint Lucia, Saint Kitts and Nevis

Guyana, Dominica, Jamaica, United States, Dominican Republic, United Kingdom, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Virgin Islands, Trinidad and Tobago, Saint Lucia

Bahamas

Australia, Cayman Islands, Netherlands Antilles, Dominican Republic, Spain, Japan, Switzerland

Haiti, United States, Jamaica, United Kingdom, Canada, Guyana, Trinidad and Tobago, India, Germany, Switzerland

Barbados

United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Trinidad and Tobago, Saint Lucia, Netherlands Antilles, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Australia, Guyana, Germany

Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saint Lucia, United States, United Kingdom, Guyana, Trinidad and Tobago, Canada, Jamaica, Grenada, Dominica

Belize

United States, Canada, United Kingdom, Mexico, Plurinational State of Bolivia, Guatemala, Cayman Islands, El Salvador, Honduras, Costa Rica

Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Mexico, United States, China, Canada, Jamaica, Nicaragua, India


33


Cuba

United States, Spain, Italy, Germany, Canada, the Dominican Republic, Mexico, Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Haiti, Chile

Spain, Russian Federation, Haiti, Ukraine, United States, Mexico, Germany, China, Jamaica, Nicaragua

Dominica

United States, United Kingdom, US Virgin Islands, Antigua and Barbuda, Canada, Spain, Italy, France, Barbados, Greece

United Kingdom, United States, Antigua and Barbuda, Trinidad and Tobago, Saint Lucia

Dominican Republic

United States, Spain, Italy, Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Netherlands Antilles, Haiti, Panama, Germany, Canada, Netherlands

Haiti, Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, United States, Puerto Rico, Spain, Italy, Cuba, Germany, Colombia, Canada

Grenada

United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Trinidad and Tobago, Barbados, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Mexico, Antigua and Barbuda, Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Australia

No data available

Guyana

United States, Canada, United Kingdom, Suriname, Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Antigua and Barbuda, Trinidad and Tobago, Barbados, Netherlands, Brazil

Suriname, Brazil, Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, United States, China, Trinidad and Tobago, United Kingdom, Saint Lucia, Barbados, Canada

Haiti

United States, Dominican Republic, Canada, France, Bahamas, Netherlands Antilles, Belgium, Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Switzerland, Netherlands

Dominican Republic, United States, Cuba, Jamaica, Colombia, Mexico, Chile, Brazil, Peru, Argentina

Jamaica

United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Cayman Islands, Bahamas, Antigua and Barbuda, Germany, Netherlands Antilles, Australia, Barbados

United States, United Kingdom, Canada, India


34



United States, United Kingdom, US Virgin Islands, Canada, Netherlands Antilles, Antigua and Barbuda, Dominican Republic, Netherlands, Australia, Saint Lucia

United States, Guyana, Dominican Republic, US Virgin Islands, United Kingdom, Antigua and Barbuda, Jamaica, Dominica, Trinidad and Tobago

Saint Lucia

United States, United Kingdom, Barbados, Canada, US Virgin Islands, Trinidad and Tobago, Antigua and Barbuda, Spain, Dominican Republic, Guyana

United Kingdom, Barbados, United States, Canada, US Virgin Islands, Guyana, Trinidad and Tobago, Netherlands Antilles, Antigua and Barbuda, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines

Saint Vincent and the Grena‐dines

Canada, United Kingdom, United States, Trinidad and Tobago, Barbados, Antigua and Barbuda, Netherlands Antilles, Saint Lucia, Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Greece

Trinidad and Tobago, Guyana, United Kingdom, United States, Grenada, Barbados, Canada, Saint Lucia, Jamaica, Dominica

Suriname

Netherlands, United States, Guyana, Netherlands Antilles, Canada, Belgium, United Kingdom, France, Brazil, Spain

Guyana, Netherlands, Brazil, China, France, Haiti, United States

Trinidad and Tobago

United States, Canada, United Kingdom, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, US Virgin Islands, Barbados, Australia, Germany, Guyana

Grenada, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Guyana, United States, United Kingdom, Barbados, Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Saint Lucia, India

Source: Data from the World Bank Migration and Remittances Factbook, 2011.

Mobility and CSME

Increased labour mobility implied by CSME migration is an important determinant of development prospects across the region, as it can help solve labour and supply

shortages that exist in both more and less developed countries. However, the issue calls for more detailed analysis of the experience of both sending countries (the governments of which may argue that nationals


35

with the most substantial skillsets are emigrating and they are thereby subsidizing the economies of the receiving countries), and receiving countries (the governments of which may effectively stymy the immigration process for fear of unwanted immigrants, the perception that immigrants will usurp the positions of nationals in the labour market and the perceived added strain of lower‐skilled migrants on the social welfare infrastructure of the country). Countries with high emigration rates among their tertiary‐educated are likely to be relatively poor and in desperate need to retain those valuable skillsets. Furthermore, they are more likely to suffer from supply bottlenecks in the labour market, more distortions in wages and lower productivity.

Another problem encountered with labour mobility efforts in the region is overcoming the obstacles created by xenophobia and by discrimination towards migrants from other countries in the region. The significance and magnitude of the contribution of Caribbean migrants to the receiving societies deserves greater prominence in the discussion of realization and protection of their human rights at the policy level in the region.

Irregular migration and asylum-seekers

The phenomenon of undocumented migration flows into the Caribbean has received increasing attention in research in recent times. While irregular intraregional migration is an important trend to be explored in research, the more prominent and visible trends in irregular migration have been in extraregional irregular migration into the region, as in cases of human trafficking both into and out of the region. Data deficiencies in this area will obviously be more severe than in the case of documented migration, therefore highlighting the need to capture the numbers through better surveillance policies and infrastructure, as part of counter‐trafficking and national security policy measures adopted at the regional and national levels.

Besides irregular migration, there are important trends to take note of with regards to refugees and asylum‐seekers in the Latin America and Caribbean region. The increase in the global refugee population was concentrated in less developed regions between 2000 and 2010 (UN DESA, 2011b). There were notable declines in the refugee populations of Asia (23%), Europe (36%) and Africa (28%), even as they increased in Latin America and the Caribbean due to the recent inclusion of persons in “refugee‐like situations” in several


36

countries within both regions. The status and circumstances of those refugees were not previously classified under the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). However, the region has seen an increase in arrivals of both refugees and irregular migrants from West Africa and Asia within the past five years.

Any official data on irregular migrants, refugees and asylum‐seekers were particularly difficult to secure in all three study countries; thus, the data used in this section reflect the efforts of civil society groups in the region which work closely to help these categories of migrants. Figure 3.12 above illustrates data from one such civil society organization in Trinidad and Tobago. The figure above shows

the change in the number of detainees held in Trinidad and Tobago between 2005 and 2010, illustrating an obvious increase in detentions between 2008 and 2010. Figures 3.13 and 3.14 show estimates of the number of refugees and asylum‐seekers in Trinidad and Tobago between 2000 and 2012. What is clearly seen is a major increase in refugees and asylum‐seekers from West African countries (such as Ghana, Nigeria, Senegal and Liberia) into Trinidad and Tobago between 2006 and 2010. In 2012, there were 23 detainees from China in Trinidad, and it is interesting to note that in most cases where there are large numbers of detainees, males unequivocally outnumber females.

Figure 3.12: Irregular migrants in Trinidad and Tobago, 2005–2010

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Source: Data from The Living Water Community, Trinidad and Tobago.


37

Figure 3.13: Origin of refugees/asylum-seekers to Trinidad and Tobago, 2000–2012

0 20 40 60

BotswanaBurkina Faso

CubaHaiti

JamaicaNamibia

NigerPeru

SudanYemen

ColombiaEritreaMali

BeninSri Lanka

TogoVenezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)

ZimbabweCameroonBangladeshGambia, TheCôte d'Ivoire

EthiopiaGuinea‐Bissau

LiberiaSenegalNigeriaGhanaCongo

GuyanaMalawiPakistan

Sierra Leone

2011–2012

2006–2010

2000–2005

Source: Data from The Living Water Community, Trinidad and Tobago.


38

Figure 3.14: Detainees in Trinidad and Tobago by origin, as of May 2012

0 5 10 15 20 25

Colombia

Latvia

Suriname

Saint Lucia

Albania

Dominican Republic

Guinea‐Bissau

Kenya

Liberia

Lithuania

Peru

Sierra Leone

Senegal

Sri Lanka

Cuba

Ghana


Grenada


Vietnam

Nigeria

Jamaica

Guyana

China

Females

Males

Source: Data from the Ministry of National Security, Trinidad and Tobago.

A distinct gender difference was observed in terms of where migrants come from and in which sectors or occupations they were employed. Irregular migrants from the African continent were overwhelmingly

male. This is perhaps linked to the long distance of their journey and the nature of jobs these migrants are promised (for example in the oil and gas and construction sectors). However, the reality upon arrival


39

is often that low‐skilled jobs, such as security guards, await them. By comparison, irregular migrants from Latin America were overwhelmingly female, most likely because of the short distance of the journey from their countries to Trinidad and Tobago and their subsequent recruitment for work in the sex industry. Similar patterns in the demographic, and particularly, gender trends of irregular migration in Trinidad and Tobago were detected in a recent study by Waldropt‐Bonair et al. (2013).

Remittances

On a global scale, South–South remittances are estimated to range between 9 and 30 per cent of developing countries’ remittance receipts, or between USD 18 and USD 55 billion in 2005 (Ratha and Shaw, 2007). The estimated amounts would be higher if flows through informal channels were taken into account.

The impact of South–South migration on the income of migrants and the host country population is smaller than for South–North migration, and this is reflected in the fact that South–North migrant remittances tend to be higher (Ratha and Shaw, 2007). Despite this, even small increases in income can have significant welfare implications

for the poor, and cross‐migration can improve the match between skills and requirements in the countries involved, thus improving both labour market efficiency and welfare.

It is also worth considering that the costs of sending remittances from South to South are relatively high compared with the costs of sending remittances from North to South. This is due to lack of competition, lack of financial development in general, and high foreign exchange commissions at both ends of the transaction (Ratha and Shaw, 2007).

Inflows and outflows of remittances in the region have generally increased between 2003 and 2011. Outflows of remittances from Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines and The Bahamas were the highest in the region within the reference period, although that result should be qualified by noting the unavailability of data from Trinidad and Tobago (figure 3.15). Altogether, more than USD 584 million in migrant wages were sent from the region, but the unavailability of country to country bilateral migration data does not allow us to say whether the entire sum was accounted for by intraregional remittances.


40

Figure 3.15: Annual outflows of workers’ remittances (USD)

0

50,000,000

100,000,000

150,000,000

200,000,000

250,000,000

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Dominica

Antigua and Barbuda

Grenada

Saint Lucia



Barbados

Dominican Republic

Suriname

Haiti

Guyana

Bahamas, The

Cuba

Trinidad and Tobago

Source: Data from the World Bank, Migration and Remittances Factbook 2011.

Figure 3.16: Annual workers’ remittance inflows (USD)

0

500,000,000

1,000,000,000

1,500,000,000

2,000,000,000

2,500,000,000

3,000,000,000

3,500,000,000

4,000,000,000

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Antigua and Barbuda

Bahamas, The

Barbados

Belize

Cuba

Dominica

Dominican Republic

Grenada

Guyana

Haiti

Jamaica


Saint Lucia


Suriname

Trinidad and Tobago


Source: Data from the World Bank, Migration and Remittances Factbook 2011.


41

Antigua and Barbuda, Cuba and Haiti received the largest remittance inflows during the reference period (figure 3.16), accounting for more than 60 per cent of the total inflows in the region. As with the outflows data, there is no way of disaggregating remittance inflows from intraregional migrants versus extraregional migrants, although it is likely that these data reflect a significant element of extraregional remittances coming from Caribbean migrant workers in traditional South–North corridors (North America and developed European OECD countries).

Conclusion

Migration has been a feature of life among Caribbean people since the end of slavery in the nineteenth century. In the twentieth century, while South to North migration has attracted significant attention, there has also been considerable intraregional migration, as well as inflows from the extraregional South. The findings of this present study suggest that policymakers should pay closer attention to the complex challenges that developing countries face both as countries of origin of migrants and now, particularly, as host countries to migrants from other developing countries. Designing appropriate policy will require tremendous effort and a considerable

commitment of resources towards improving data. There will need to be careful analysis of the socioeconomic impact of migration on wages, income distribution, and gender, and on the rights of migrants to health, education and other services.

Increased mobility in a globalized world challenges traditional notions of countries of origin and countries of destination. Developing nations, including those in the Caribbean, are simultaneously becoming countries of transition and destination, and are faced with the myriad difficulties this poses while invariably lacking the financial, technical and human resource capabilities and legal framework available to other wealthier countries in the North Atlantic.

In this regard, policymakers need to pay attention to migration using the overarching framework outlined by the International Organization for Migration (IOM): managing, facilitating and regulating migration. By using these broad pillars, greater emphasis would be placed on managing migration flows (both intraregional and extraregional); tailoring migration policies to filter migration flows according to labour needs; encouraging research to inform policy, particularly from a rights‐based perspective as in the case of expanding migration flows from countries of the global South.


43

4. Discussion of focus group meeting findings

Introduction

The focus group meetings were conducted on separate occasions in each of the study countries between November and December 2012. In the process of identifying participants in each country, different contact groups and methodologies were used to devise a final listing. Most of the nationalities represented at the focus group meetings had representation in the host societies under their respective nationality‐based associations. However, other nationals who were not represented by associations were able to gain

knowledge of the meetings through informal connections. The numbers in attendance at each respective meeting were as follows: Trinidad and Tobago: 5; Saint Kitts: 10; Nevis: 12; Barbados: 10.

Table 4.1 below provides the basic structure of each of the meetings, the composition of each group, and the broad themes covered in each session. The sections that follow provide a qualitative analysis of discussions in each group and in the conclusion, some of the main findings, which are important for policy, are highlighted.

Table 4.1: The structure of the focus groups and the broad themes discussed

Focus group Broad themes and issues discussed

Group 1: Barbados (28 November 2012)•Professionals working with

international organizations in Barbados

• Students at the UWI Cavehill Campus• Independent businesspeople

•Motivating factors of behind moving to Barbados

•Access to services in Barbados•Experience of life as a non‐national of

Barbados• Social perception, acceptance and

discrimination

Group 2: Nevis (3 December 2012)• Independent employees and migrant

workers• Independent business people•A large cross‐section of the Hispanic

community

•Motivating factors behind moving to Nevis

•The impact of migration on migrant families

• Issues and challenges with movement under the CSME

•Assess to social services in Nevis• Social perception, acceptance and

discrimination • Support systems for immigrants


44

Focus group Broad themes and issues discussed

Group 3: Saint Kitts (4 December 2012)• Independent professionals •University lecturer• Independent migrant workers

•Motivating factors behind moving to Saint Kitts

•The impact of migration on migrant families

• Issues and challenges with movement under the CSME

•Assess to social services in Saint Kitts• Social perception, acceptance and

discrimination • Support systems for immigrants

Group 4: Trinidad and Tobago (15 December 2012)•University students•Asylum‐seeker •University lecturer• Forced migrant

•Motivating factors behind moving to Trinidad and Tobago

• Lived experience of being a migrant in Trinidad and Tobago

• Forced migration•Perceptions and acceptance of

migrants in Trinidad and Tobago

4.1 Discussion of broad themes in the focus groups

The following sections present an analysis of the focus group meeting discussions under the broad themes that were explored in each session. The commonalities that ran across group discussions are highlighted and compared. At the end of each section, the positives and negatives of the lived experiences of migrants in each country are highlighted for comparison.

The push and pull factors influencing intraregional migration

Barbados

The composition of the Barbados group was such that many of the

motivating factors for moving there were pull factors. Three of the participants were students from other countries in the Caribbean who had elected to study at the Cave Hill campus of UWI, and thus represented the important element of intraregional student migrants in the subregion. Other participants had moved to Barbados to work with international organizations in areas such as medicine, law, business and theology. Another participant started out as a student in Barbados, later obtained residency status after 10 years of continuous residence, and subsequently upgraded to citizenship three years later.

Among the reasons identified by participants, the following are the most important pull factors attracting movement into Barbados:


45

a) Migration to provide skills in high demand, particularly at international organizations;

b) Migration to pursue higher education;

c) Migration to set up businesses/ as part of their jobs with foreign companies that have a presence in Barbados.

“Despite the number of years I have been here, Barbados will never really totally be ‘home’. I find it easier to form friendships with non-nationals.”

The main push factor identified was the perception of a relative lack of opportunities for self‐development in migrants’ home countries when compared to Barbados.


The responses in Saint Kitts and Nevis were comparatively more diverse. In Saint Kitts, most participants noted that their decision to move to the island was motivated by the relatively better opportunities for specific professions available there. For example, it was noted that many Jamaican lawyers come to Saint Kitts to fill under‐staffed civil positions, which was a clear benefit of intraregional migration to Saint Kitts and Nevis. Other inbound migrants came to Saint Kitts and Nevis from elsewhere in the Caribbean to take advantage

of hereditary citizenship status under the Federation’s immigration law, which grants citizenship status to the children and grandchildren of nationals of Saint Kitts and Nevis.

Prior to 2005, Dominican Republic and Guyanese migrants came to Saint Kitts and Nevis to seek better wages as labourers in the sugar cane industry. However, participants noted that since the closure of the refinery in 2005, many Guyanese migrants have returned to their homeland to seek better opportunities there. The closure of the Four Seasons Hotel in Nevis – which was a major employer on the island – in 2005 following Hurricane Omar was a major shock to migrant workers’ incomes. This also caused some movement out of the Federation, something which has continued following the exacerbation of economic hardships ensuing from the global crisis in 2008.

Many of the Hispanic migrants worked in the newsprint industry, in hotels and restaurants and in construction. Participants estimated that many had since lost their jobs the service and construction sectors following the rapid deceleration of tourism and construction. The tightening of credit and investment in both sectors has kept job growth stagnant since 2008. Despite these bleak prospects, many of the Hispanic migrants were staying on Nevis, whereas other migrants affected by the economic slowdown had moved back to their homelands or on to the United States.


46

Trinidad and Tobago

The entry conditions for this group of respondents represented three aspects of intraregional migration not captured in the other countries: forced migration, transit migration and trafficked persons. One of the migrants entered Trinidad as a forced migrant, eventually marrying a national of Trinidad and Tobago, and subsequently facing the threat of being sent back to her home country after having a child that was rejected by her husband. Another participant had entered the region as a resident of the United States originally from a Spanish‐speaking Caribbean State who used the opportunity to come to Trinidad and Tobago as an alternative to returning to his home country. Finally, a third participant had entered Trinidad and Tobago as an asylum‐seeker from an African country. As a university student in his home country, he left his country of origin for political reasons and chose Trinidad and Tobago as a destination because there was no visa requirement to enter a fellow Commonwealth country. Other participants of this group had entered and stayed in Trinidad under a variety of circumstances. Among the reasons cited were familial relocation to Trinidad, migration to Trinidad for better employment opportunities and migration to improve the overall standard of living.

Access to services

Barbados

All of the participants had a regular immigration status was and concluded that regular migrants did not face any significant challenges in accessing services, except for health care. The participants noted that non‐nationals faced explicit discrimination when accessing health care, as evidenced by having to pay user fees at public hospitals and by the existence of waiting lists for non‐nationals (even in cases of minor operations).

In terms of access to ownership of assets and property, most agreed that regular immigrants did not face significant challenges, as long as they had the proper documentation in place and met the requirements applicable to all nationals of Barbados. However, some noted that discrimination in this area could also be discretionary and based on any number of factors.

The overall sentiment was that services in Barbados were relatively affordable compared to other parts of the Caribbean, especially essential services, such as healthcare, transportation and education, which are all subsidized. It is interesting to note that despite the overall lack of burdens, participants mentioned considerable bureaucracy and difficulty in sending remittances from Barbados, and that some final


47

destinations were more difficult to send to than others (Trinidad and Tobago and Grenada were said to be the easiest to remit to). Much of the difficulty was felt to be discretionary discrimination, as it was pointed out that success in sending remittances could depend on what type of account one had, for example.

“There’s a correlation between the treatment of foreigners and the exchange rate of individual countries. The lower the currency value of the country, the more the hostility they face in Barbados generally.”

Participants also identified resentment on the part of native‐born in their perceptions of migrants’ impact on social services – namely that migrants placed a burden on them. It was generally agreed that migrants were treated unfairly in this regard, as they paid the same taxes as nationals yet were made to pay an additional fee for access to public healthcare.


Non‐nationals in Saint Kitts and Nevis reported paying user fees in order to gain access to health care and education services, marking one way in which migrants are discriminated against. The discrimination faced by non‐nationals is also reinforced by a

general perception that immigrants were a drain on the country’s social services, and participants in focus groups felt that most nationals were unaware of the cost that migrants incurred in trying to access social services.

Non‐nationals did not face any significant challenges in obtaining property or securing legal documentation. They reported alternatives to traditional banking available to migrants, such as the Saint Kitts Nevis Financial Company Ltd (FINCO), which offered easier access to credit than mainstream banking options. Participants also claimed that setting up a business typically was not a challenge, but that other aspects of asset acquisition, such as land ownership, were a bit more challenging. Non‐nationals had to apply for land under the Alien Landholdings Act, and because of this, bureaucracy and tacit discrimination were named among the risks that they faced when trying to acquire land.

“Sometimes, children did not get into school for more than a year. Children in Nevis cannot get into school just because you have no work permit.”

Some problems with access to schools were described in Nevis, where participants mentioned that enrolling non‐national children in


48

schools was more difficult than it used to be during the 1980s and 1990s. Participants noted the main barrier was that parents without work permits could not enroll their children, and that in some instances, non‐nationals were even discouraged from trying to enroll their children. There were also fees for non‐nationals that did not apply to nationals, and the bureaucracy involved in enrolling non‐national children was perceived to be greater than for nationals.

It was also noted that some migrant workers faced problems with their employers failing to pay social security contributions for them.

Trinidad and Tobago

Participants did not report experiencing discrimination when accessing social or other services in Trinidad and Tobago. This theme did not receive much discussion in this group past the establishment of that general consensus.

The lives of non-nationals in their adopted homes

Barbados

This question prompted many negative responses, although many pointed out that life in Barbados presented relatively better economic prospects than in some other parts

of the Caribbean. It was reiterated that the general sentiment was one of “Barbados for Bajans3 only” and that the attitude towards foreigners was generally one of apprehension, mistrust, or outright disgust, particularly if they were seen to be occupying positions at prestigious institutions. Participants noted situations in everyday life where this resentment could be perceived, from the biased reporting of Barbadian reporters at cricket matches, to opinions overheard about foreigners in public areas. Resentment against “Trini businesses” or disdain for “dirty Vincys” was thought to be common, even on the university campus, where one would generally expect such xenophobic aphorisms to be suppressed. Table 4.2 below highlights some of the positives and negatives that emerged from the discussion.

“In fact, the attitude change registers on their face when they find out your nationality…”

Some migrant groups reported that they had faced discrimination or general disdain more than others, particularly Indo‐Guyanese. Ethnic tensions were strongly alluded to, given the relative homogeneity of Barbados’ native population. Some participants also said they could

3 Short form for Barbadian used locally.


49

perceive that other migrants groups received relatively preferential treatment. One participant recalled that nationals generally become friendlier when they realized that an individual was of Grenadian, rather than Guyanese origin, and sometimes they could tell from the accent alone. This preferential status of some migrants over others was made more explicit in some cases, as people often heard nationals say “We like Grenadians” (people from Grenada). Tensions within nationality groups were also noted, as in the case between Indo and Afro‐Guyanese migrants. Due to their ethnicity, Afro‐Guyanese were more likely to be preferred by Barbadians than Indo‐Guyanese.

Apart from ethnicity, the perception that certain migrant groups are concentrated in lower‐level occupations was also considered to contribute to disdainful perceptions of migrants among the wider

Barbadian society. Guyanese were often the targets of this derision, as they are generally perceived to be in occupations that are widely rejected by Barbadian nationals. In general, while nationalistic sentiment is strong and can translate into overt xenophobia in certain instances, migrants were able to live peacefully in Barbados, tolerating most circumstances of discrimination as part of the deal of being a foreigner.

It was noted that while there was a strong institution of self‐representation among the nationalities, in the form of nationality‐based associations, a more cohesive relationship between natives and migrants could be built by establishing an organization that represents all intraregional migrants. Participants felt such an organization was highly practical, given that most nationals and non‐nationals in Barbados faced common problems and shared similar concerns.

Table 4.2: Positives and negatives of being a migrant in Barbados

Positives Negatives

Better relative social mobility options

Some segregation among nationalities or within nationality groups based on ethnicity (e.g. between Afro and Indo Guyanese)

Relatively better economic conditions than in country of origin

Some discrimination, to varying levels, based on nationality


50


While the general perception was that the society at large had a positive and accepting attitude towards migrants, some tensions within the migrant communities were identified. Similarly to Barbados, participants acknowledged that within the Guyanese community, there was tacit segregation based on ethnicity, with Afro and Indo‐Guyanese forming distinctive social bonds and communities based on their ethnicity. Indo‐Guyanese were perceived to be less open to integration, and were seen to cluster around their religious and cultural institutions. Since the Indo‐Guyanese population was larger than the Afro‐Guyanese population in Nevis, Afro‐Guyanese were more open to integration with the other nationals and non‐nationals of African descent. Nationality and origin on the whole was felt to play a role in social perception. Barbadians were felt to be the most well‐treated intraregional migrants, closely followed by nationals of Trinidad and Tobago, since these two groups tended to be either skilled professionals and (more so in the case of nationals of Trinidad and Tobago) business owners and investors. Conversely, Guyanese and Haitians were the most poorly‐treated, in part because they occupied the most menial of non‐skilled jobs and were necessarily of lower socioeconomic status.

“Kittitians who go away and come back are treated like they ‘nat from hyah’….”

It was noted too that older nationals, or those with lower levels of education, tended to be more likely to express less favorable views of non‐nationals, but also that some nationals felt intimidated by highly educated non‐nationals, particularly in the workplace. Even nationals who had returned from living in the North were said to be targets for discrimination by other nationals, as they were perceived as foreigners once they returned.

One of the main problems that non‐English speaking migrants reported was the lack of any state programmes to assist in assimilation and learning the English language. However, some migrants benefited from private institutions offering English language training, although these programmes were not reaching the migrants that needed them the most, such as those with lower levels of education and older migrants. Younger Spanish‐speaking migrants tended to be bilingual, and so did not have significant language problems. They also tended to be better educated, and therefore were able to acquire better occupations than their parents. The existence of an established migrant community in the Federation ensured that


51

most migrants had some refuge as newcomers, and the problem of homelessness did not arise.

Migrants felt that better representation of their nationalities on the islands would improve their access to services, and would increase the visibility of their most pressing concerns to the authorities. However, group dynamics and the power of identity seemed to dictate how well migrant groups self‐represented. It was acknowledged that some groups, such as the Jamaicans and Guyanese were well‐represented by their associations due to a stronger, more pervasive national identity within these groups. Conversely, other groups, such as those from the Dominican Republic and Trinidad and Tobago, had almost no representation, or had moribund associations that did little to make their communities stronger and more cohesive on issues that affected them.

Trinidad and Tobago

Guyanese migrants in Trinidad and Tobago faced unfavorable opinions in the social psyche and this could translate into tacit and other forms of discrimination. A participant of this group recalled applying for a job for which he was eminently qualified but presumably because of his Guyanese origin, he was being denied even the prospect of an interview for the job. Of note is the fact that the position was for a vacancy in an international organization. Similarly to Saint Kitts and Nevis, the perception of discrimination and prejudice seemed to decline as the education level of nationals increased. The Guyanese participant recalled that his experience at the university was much more positive compared to his interactions with the wider society.

Table 4.3: Positives and negatives of being a migrant in Saint Kitts and Nevis

Positives Negatives

Little negative reception by society in general

Some segregation among nationalities or within nationality groups based on ethnicity (e.g. between Afro and Indo Guyanese)

Relatively better economic conditions than in country of origin, although this had changed to some extent recently, and some Guyanese had moved back home to find better fortunes

Lack of support programmes for non‐Anglophone migrants


52

There was a strong consensus that extraregional migrants were treated more favorably and gained acceptance more easily than intraregional migrants. The general attitude towards intraregional migrants was primarily one of disdain (as they were perceived to be poorer). The correlation between ethnicity and social perceptions was also tacitly alluded to, as it was acknowledged that African migrants were generally treated with more hostility than non‐African migrants.

The asylum‐seeker in the group pointed out that migrants in his situation were quite vulnerable, because there were no real protections available to them and they were disconnected from their families in their homeland. There

was evidence of clear mistreatment of African migrants, who could be detained indefinitely and subjected to cruelty while awaiting a resolution (usually deportation). Refugees and asylum‐seekers had at least one support system in the form of civil society groups, which assisted migrants by offering support services to them. In this asylum‐seeker’s particular case, a prominent civil society group was actively engaged in helping him to achieve refugee status in Trinidad and Tobago. Civil society organizations such as these can be key partners with the state in providing support services to vulnerable migrants and in filling other gaps in human rights protections that the state apparatus cannot adequately address.

Table 4.4: Positives and negatives of being a migrant in Trinidad and Tobago

Positives NegativesGenerally, extra‐Caribbean migrants feel more welcome

Some extra‐Caribbean migrants feel unwelcome (e.g. African migrants)

Relatively better conditions in Trinidad and Tobago compared to country of origin

An inherent dislike for/distrust of certain intra‐regional migrant groups (e.g. Guyanese)Limited options in the possibilities of activities in which one can engage compared to a larger country Immigration procedures are tedious/ disorganized (a lack of standardized information was noted in particular)


53

The impact of migration on migrants’ families in the host country

Barbados

Participants reported that the process of migrating to Barbados was not always easy. One case was related in which a family would have been separated under legal stipulations, even though the head of the household had a valid work permit. One of the children was not born in Barbados and would have been forced to leave Barbados upon turning 18. The family therefore had to uproot and relocate to Trinidad. Other alleged instances of unfair treatment under legal stipulations were heard. Another participant said that despite having a CARICOM skills certificate, she still had to apply for a student visa for her child every year. This problem was validated by the response of at least one other participant.

The process of securing immigration documents was generally thought to be tedious, and lacking in proper information. Participants noted that there were difficulties in securing access to proper information on becoming a resident or citizen in Barbados, or when applying for work permits.


It was interesting to note that Guyanese migrants preferred to work

in the sugar industry of Saint Kitts and Nevis (even if they would not usually choose that occupation in their homeland) because the exchange rate into their own currency was so favourable that it allowed them to remit substantial amounts of money to Guyana to support their families there.

“Guyanese in Guyana would say ‘Cain kill Abel, but cane ain’t gun’ kill me’... but they would come to Saint Kitts and cut cane, because the exchange rate is $70 (EC dol-lars) to $1 (Guyanese dollar).”

One of the major impacts highlighted was the cost involved in securing legal status in Saint Kitts. Children under the age of 18 had to pay school fees of $EC 75 per term, whereas adults are required to pay annual residency fees between $EC 600‐1500. Work permits were even costlier, at $EC 2,500‐2,550. Generally, the only problem that was encountered in securing legal status for families was heavy bureaucracy, but not to the extent that bribes had to be paid, or other forms of corruption engaged in.

Some migrant children were affected by the social stigma of being from migrant families. One participant from the Dominican Republic noted that some children faced self‐esteem issues because of the way they internalized the perception that


54

migrants (of their nationality) were inferior. Some instances of bullying at school were largely motivated by aggression against these groups being played out in the schoolyard. Guyanese migrants also attested to cases of bullying involving their children.

Trinidad and Tobago

The group generally reported minimal negative impact of migration to Trinidad and Tobago on their families who moved with them there. No difficulties were reported in terms of access to health care and education. In spite of this, it was reported that access to service and general treatment of migrants was highly dependent on their nationality, and irregular migrants, particularly African migrants, experienced discrimination and maltreatment at the hands of the State. One major impact that was mentioned was the cost of migration. None of the migrants faced separation from their children.

Intraregional movement and challenges under the CSME

There were many commonalities running across group discussions on challenges that intraregional migrants faced when attempting to migrate under CSME stipulations. In Barbados and Saint Kitts and Nevis, immigration practices were found to

be in direct contravention of CSME laws, as CARICOM nationals were given three‐month stay periods in Barbados, rather than the stipulated six. On the other hand, in Saint Kitts and Nevis, CARICOM migrants tended to get one month or less. The only countries in the region that have ratified the legislation on six‐month stays in the destination country are Guyana and Suriname. In Saint Kitts and Nevis and Barbados, migrants insisted that immigration practices were very discriminatory and that policies were implemented on a discretionary basis, rather than according to the agreed treaty governing human mobility under the CSME.

Other persistent problems mentioned were considerable bureaucracy and long waiting periods to have applications for CSME skills certificate successfully processed. Some skill categories faced special stipulations, such as media workers, but the implementation of a standard and well‐adhered‐to set of stipulations was still lacking. The absence of an active CSME implementation unit in all three countries was seen as a major contributor to problems faced by migrants.

Migrants from the Dominican Republic did not face challenges under the CSME, given that the Dominican Republic is not party to the economic zone. However, migrants


55

noted that the lack of other legally binding supranational agreements between CARICOM and their country made it difficult for some to migrate to CARICOM countries and placed them at further risk of discrimination.

4.2 Conclusion

Intraregional migrants benefit from greater relative mobility in the Caribbean, but could benefit more from ratification and proper implementation of CSME laws. Recent global events have worsened economic fortunes for migrants moving to smaller islands, while opportunities have opened up elsewhere in the Caribbean, implying that migration flows will continue to shift between territories as comparative economic performance changes. Xenophobia, discrimination and a sometimes inadequate state apparatus present major problems for migrants moving to and living in other Caribbean states. Civil society agencies can be a valuable resource‐base and partner to governments in providing data and bridging the knowledge‐gap relating to the needs of migrants.

The focus group sessions cast some light on a few salient policy issues that should take greater precedence in government and supranational‐level discussions on migration policy.

These are:

�� The effectiveness and proper implementation of the CSME:

The discrepancies between supranational agreements at the CARICOM level and at the state level places migrants moving around the Caribbean at a great disadvantage when seeking better labour‐market options. The failure to uphold agreed‐to conditions of free movement also implicitly points to a violation of international law by some states.

�� State‐provided support systems for migrants:

Hispanophone migrants with lower levels of education who are migrating to Anglophone territories could benefit from less labour market friction if a part of their assimilation process included English language training. Better‐educated and younger Hispanophone migrants could also benefit from this type of assistance, even though that demographic group is more likely to migrate with better functional English language skills.

�� Equalization of access to social and other services for migrants:

The imposition of additional user fees on non‐nationals should be discontinued to allow fairer access to essential services, such as health care and education. Other forms of discriminatory barriers to access to


56

social services, such as increased bureaucracy and discretionary discrimination should be monitored at the institutional level and targeted through better policy.

�� Human rights protections for migrants and special protections for more vulnerable categories of migrants, such as refugees and asylum‐seekers:

There should be greater emphasis placed on recognizing the human rights of forced migrants, refuges and asylum‐seekers, as guided by the UNHCR Refugee Convention. Stronger efforts are needed to ensure that migrants are neither mistreated nor subjected to rights violations in any way during the course of due process.


57

5. Discussion of policymakers’ survey findings

Introduction

The survey was targeted towards key personnel at ministries of national security, social development, and labour in all three countries, departments of immigration and departments or central offices of statistics and one civil society organization. One of the major difficulties of this study was getting in contact with government ministries and agencies. There was an almost impenetrable barrier of bureaucracy hindering contact with key informants at ministries in all three countries. During the data‐gathering period, officials in two countries (Barbados and Saint Kitts and Nevis) were preoccupied with general elections, and the subsequent re‐structuring period made garnering responses even more difficult.

Many of the original policymakers who were targeted had to be dropped due to non‐contact. Even where there were substitutions, there were difficulties in making contact and securing their participation. There was some resistance from a ministry in Trinidad and Tobago to allowing multiple responses, and the censored official response that was received presented specific methodological challenges of validity and reliability. The initial target response rate of thirty surveys was severely cut, as

only twenty responses overall were secured.

5.1 Survey findings

The following sections collate the responses under the broad headings of the survey and compare them across countries. The headings were: (a) Key factors driving intraregional migration; (b) Official migration policy; (c) Sources of information; (d) Recommendations for change.

Key factors driving intraregional migration

When asked to outline the most pressing issues currently driving intraregional migration, policymakers across the three countries cited the relative economic strengths of regional territories as the main reason why people move around the Caribbean. Respondents in Trinidad and Tobago also cited better job prospects, relatively better standards of living, and political factors as push factors (instability and crime). Some of the key pressing issues that policymakers perceived as affecting intraregional migration are:

a) The cost of transportation (both air and sea);

b) Onerous and long immigration procedures;


58

c) Lack of proper immigration legislation (or implementation where it exists);

d) Persistent barriers to legal migration; and,

e) Tracking of immigration flows.

Immigration was clearly of great concern for the respondents in Barbados and Saint Kitts and Nevis, whereas in Trinidad and Tobago, emigration also figured as an area of concern.

When asked which of the following issues were the primary reason for concern regardign immigration/emigration, in Barbados and Saint Kitts and Nevis resource constraints and population growth were cited. In the case of Trinidad and Tobago, “brain drain” was the rationale given.

Respondents also summarized the main motivating or push factors driving intraregional migration as the following (in order of importance):

a) Better relative income prospects;

b) Better standard of living;

c) Pursuit of higher education;

d) Political instability;

e) Environmental hazards;

f) Other.

For the most part, the policymakers’ perceptions of the reasons why migrants from elsewhere in the

Caribbean came to their countries were corroborated by the reasons given by the migrants that were interviewed.

When asked to rate the overall attitude towards migrants in their respective countries, perceptions of the policymakers seemed to be slightly at odds with actual experience of migrants in the respective countries. The perception of migrants was thought to be negative in Saint Kitts and Nevis, and in Trinidad and Tobago. However, in Barbados, there was the view that migrants were seen in a positive light, which was inconsistent with the reported perception of migrants gleaned from the focus group meeting.

Respondents in all three countries saw the origin of migrants as a main determinant of how they were generally treated in society, corroborating the perception held by migrants who were interviewed. When asked to elaborate, the respondents in Saint Kitts and Nevis and Barbados noted that Guyanese, Dominicans and extraregional migrants from certain countries (such as Nigeria and other African countries) were less welcome. Respondents in Trinidad and Tobago found that migrants from “metropolitan nations” were more readily accepted than migrants from poorer territories, and that the accent and skin color of migrants determined how they were treated


59

on a regular basis. Chinese migrants were perceived as beneficial to the economy because of the perception that they were likely to open businesses, create jobs and pay taxes, whereas migrants from Nigeria or Guyana were perceived less favorably, as they were assumed to be menial labourers or undocumented workers.

Official migration policy

When asked whether there were discrepancies between the practice of immigration policy in their respective countries and what was stipulated at the CARICOM level, there were mixed responses. In Barbados and Saint Kitts and Nevis, the majority of interviewees responded “no” to this, whereas in Trinidad and Tobago, the majority was unsure. There were in fact discrepancies; one in particular which was identified in Barbados and Saint Kitts and Nevis is the practice of restricting the period of stay of CARICOM nationals to less than what is stipulated under the Free Movement Agreement of CARICOM (a definite stay of six months for nationals of CARICOM member states and holders of CSME certificates). Some of the “yes” responders elaborated, admitting that the agreed‐upon measures and categories for movement are not being implemented because of delays in enacting supporting legislation.

The more senior the respondent, the more comprehensive the response to this question tended to be.

Migrants and the economy

In Saint Kitts and Nevis, the respondents mentioned the contribution of migrants in providing services that nationals did not want to perform. In Trinidad and Tobago and Barbados, respondents mentioned the contribution of migrants as founders of new businesses, professional/skilled workers as well as low‐skilled labourers.

Policymakers also noted the correlation between the origin of migrants and the occupational activities in which they tended to engage across all three countries. Their responses indicated that, whereas migrants from poorer Caribbean territories tended to occupy low‐skilled jobs for most of their stay, migrants from other parts of the world – specifically Asia – tended to be better represented as entrepreneurs.

In all three of the study countries, policymakers lacked data on the number of migrants who were victims of trafficking for sexual exploitation, highlighting one area of data collection that is highly deficient in the region. One of the challenges is clearly that the nature of the sex industry makes


60

enumeration difficult, whereas another is the resource requirement that is implicit in collecting such data. That respondents could not give a conclusive answer suggests that little may be documented at the official level about the abuses and vulnerabilities faced by trafficked migrants coming into these countries and being forced to work in sex work, which is illicit in all three countries.

Respondents were asked to rate the perceived impacts migrants had on a range of economic sectors. Their responses focused on the labour market, health, education and social programmes. While migrants were recognized as having a possible positive impact on the labour market, they were seen in a negative light in the other areas.

When asked to elaborate on some of these perceptions, policymakers highlighted the following reasons:

a) In Barbados and Saint Kitts and Nevis, migrants were perceived to be gaining disproportionate access to health services and nationals felt that they were being deprived first preference on hospital waiting lists. Migrants were thought to be benefiting from the system without contributing, despite the fact that in those countries immigrants are actually required to pay user fees.

b) Immigrants were believed to be pulling down wages since there

was little by way of monitoring and remedying unfair treatment by employers. These views persisted despite the fact that migrants often take jobs that are widely shunned by nationals.

c) Migrants were also thought to be disproportionately benefiting from social transfer programmes, such as the Community‐based Environmental Protection and Enhancement Program in Trinidad and Tobago, by gaining employment that it was felt should be occupied by nationals.

Sources of information

Although policymakers ranked the collection of migration data as very important across the study countries, a number of pressing challenges were cited, including the following:

a) Lack of adequate tracking of migrants after they have entered the island makes it difficult to estimate their numbers in Barbados;

b) Scarce human resources to conduct regular migrant surveys and engage in other data‐collection activities;

c) The lack of a standardized system of data collection that yields reliable results which can be used for analysis;


61

d) The absence of centralized data‐collection units that can gather intelligence from other agencies;

e) The fact that migration is currently not a high‐priority area targeted for dedication of further resources.

Across the three countries, NGOs, academic researchers and private sector interests were all thought to have some influence on migration policies in their respective countries. However, in Saint Kitts and Nevis and Trinidad and Tobago, some saw NGOs and academics as having no influence at all while in Barbados, only academic researchers were identified as having direct influence.

When asked how the various interest groups influenced policy in the respective countries, the respondents cited a range of activities that the governments engage in, such as consultation with civil society on policies through town hall meetings, NGO interaction with government ministries, and discussion forums.

Academic research is occasionally used in the formulation of policy, but some respondents in Trinidad and Tobago and those in Saint Kitts and Nevis felt that it was never used, suggesting that academic research played a limited role in policy formation in those countries.

The costs associated with migration

Policymakers were easily able to identify the costs and benefits associated with migration. Their responses are summarized as the following:

Costs:

a) The handling and deportation of irregular migrants (airfare, meals and sustenance, housing, and so forth);

b) Adding to the backlog of an already overburdened social service system;

c) Increased crime and the associated costs of curtailing criminal activity;

d) Human trafficking, including for sexual exploitation;

e) Increased administrative costs associated with processing migrants through health and education sectors and to provide work permits/ other legal documentation;

f) The cost of providing adequate and safe public housing for migrants and providing for the security of refugees/ asylum‐seekers;

g) The cost of providing additional public housing and the re‐routing of increased resources to combat squatting problems exacerbated by migrants;

h) The wage impact of migrants, increasing levels of poverty/ vulnerability.


62

Benefits:

a) The transfer of knowledge and skills that skilled migrants bring;

b) Foreign Direct Investment inflows;

c) Additional wealth generated by increased economic activity/ entrepreneurship;

d) A broader labour pool and a solution to labour supply shortages;

e) Sustainable cheap labour;

d) Increased revenues through indirect taxation.

Respondents were asked to make suggestions of what changes in policy they thought would help to improve the benefits of migration to their country, while minimizing its costs. Their responses are summarized as follows:

a) A comprehensive reform to immigration policy, based on priority economic sectors and labour needs;

b) A well‐articulated immigration policy that identifies which skillsets the country is seeking to attract and stricter implementation of stipulations under countries’ respective immigration acts;

c) The strengthening of national border patrols to curtail irregular migration and greater collaboration with the regional

international security apparatus to interdict human trafficking;

d) Stricter stipulations and enforcement of screening procedures for migrants applying for residency;

e) The development of a specific refugee policy that honours the commitment to international conventions to protect their human rights;

f) The establishment of a Labour Migration authority;

g) Greater sensitization of the leadership of key agencies, such as ministries of national security, to the importance of migration issues, the nexus between migration and development and a reorientation of the leadership towards the importance of research for better policymaking;

h) Greater commitment of resources towards in‐house research units dedicated to all migration issues.

Generally, respondents listed living conditions of migrants, immigration policy reform and the curtailment of irregular migration as top priorities to be addressed in migration policies.

5.2 Conclusion

Although the data garnered in the survey were from a limited sample, creating issues of reliability and


63

validity, the perceptions captured suggest that while there is an acknowledgement of the broader importance of migration issues to the development agenda of the study countries, little has been done so far to sensitize officials to the importance of regular, reliable and timely migration data. There was also some divergence between what officials perceived about the realities that migrants in their countries faced and the actual situation of migrants. Much of what policymakers perceived about migration issues was reflective of the general public opinion, on issues ranging from the impact of migrants on social services systems

to the broader societal perceptions and prejudices against migrants. On a wider scale, this may reflect the lack of information at the official level; more directly, it highlights the need to address data and information deficiencies aggressively, while elevating the priority of migration issues in policy discussions in all the study countries, as well as in regional development forums. The policy space on migration issues in the Caribbean countries studied seems to lack an adequate foundation of information necessary to support much needed policy reform.


65

6. Conclusions and recommendations

6.1 Conclusions

Despite the central role that various types of migration play in the region, the phenomenon is not given commensurate attention by policymakers. As a result, there are deficits in data collection on migration, something that could help to ensure various protocols regarding the movement of nationals in the region are respected and adhered to and that migrants’ rights are upheld.

The principal challenges faced in undertaking this research revolved around the availability of reliable migration data collected on a consistent basis, as well as the sharing and dissemination of data, and the lack of willingness of those involved in policy implementation to participate as respondents in officially sanctioned surveys. In recognition of the importance of data collection to migration, there must be a targeted intervention aimed at the region’s policymakers with support from various international organizations, such as the IOM, Organization of American States, United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), UNICEF, the International Labour Organization (ILO), and so forth.

In this regard, the IOM can play a lead role with support from other regional and international stakeholders

with a general interest in migration data gathering and migration management. The intervention needs to be targeted to ensure the commitment of decision makers and the main data collection bodies, such as the respective central statistical offices in the individual countries.

The fact that various reports reiterate the need for harmonization of data can attest to the failure of regional bodies in achieving this goal. For example, the country‐specific recommendations with respect to migration data in the CARICOM report (Brown et al., 2010: 240) highlighted “the need for an effective data capture system for use in monitoring, evaluation and communication with other policy makers.” Special reference is equally made of the role of the statistical agencies in that process. Similarly an earlier report by UNICEF (2009: 15) called for the “harmonization of migration data and its mainstreaming in socioeconomic research.”

In addition to the need for data sharing, a culture of consistent data collection needs to be reinforced to avoid outdated information being utilized; for instance, the data of the Caribbean Community Regional Census Office is from 1994. Caribbean countries need to gather, track and analyse data on their foreign‐born residents in order to craft and


66

manage sound policies. Migration needs to be given more emphasis as a major component in gathering data and formulating national and regional population policies.

Greater attention should be paid to the role of migration in population trends, particularly in relation to declining fertility rates in many Caribbean countries. Additional research is required to ascertain how low fertility rates in the region are affected by inward migration as a mechanism to address population decline in territories whose birth rates have been decreasing for a sustained period. This can inform population policy in Caribbean countries with ageing populations. Other population trends include the feminization of migration and the incorporation of this issue in the elaboration of a gender policy or adherence to equal opportunity legislation, where they exist in specific countries.

With respect to economic growth, the contribution of migrant labour needs to be ascertained as migrants from the subregion are increasingly being absorbed in specific sectors/industries where the constituent population no longer desires to perform those menial functions/tasks. In addition to quantifying their economic contribution to the host country, this recognition can have the advantage of raising awareness of the positive aspects of inward migration

from the subregion, which in turn can mitigate stereotyping, intolerance, prejudice and xenophobia.

While economic and political realities may make some countries in the region destinations for migrants, it is important that native‐born residents understand that such trends could shift in the future, prompting them to migrate themselves. Equitable treatment of neighbours as migrants today should earn the credit of reciprocal treatment tomorrow. The State, through its policies and the institutional arrangements, can signal the appropriate behaviours to be displayed to migrants.

The NGO community might be particularly helpful advocating among governments to ensure that commitments made on mobility under the CSME are adhered to across the board. A regular focus on countries in which national immigration legislation and policy fall short of the stipulations of the CSME, may induce greater willingness on the part of governments to comply.

There is greater recognition now of the importance of remittance income to these economies. Moreover, the governments have become interested in attracting capital from the diaspora as a useful flow of inward directed investment. Remittance income is usually in support of current expenditures of recipient households, and can assist in mitigating poverty


67

among lower income households. Collective action on the part of governments may offer the possibility of reducing costs of transfers by way of remittances from relatives abroad. An approach by the governments to an organization like Western Union may secure benefits in the forms of cost reduction.

The recognition on the part of governments that intraregional migration is part of the evolving reality of Caribbean life, and, moreover, that migrants contribute to development, and represent not only a source of outflow to their countries of origin, will help ease the tension between native populations and migrants. More importantly, the policy framework informed by that recognition constitutes an investment in a Caribbean reality of greater movement among its people within the region itself.

6.2 Recommendations

The following table lists the recommendations that have emerged from the study.

Improved data collection

a) Sensitize officials on the importance of regular, reliable and timely enumeration of migration information;

b) Bring together statistical and academic bodies from the region to focus on means of harmonizing data collection and sharing best practices;

c) Pay special attention to the need for disaggregated data, in particular, for careful analysis of the socioeconomic impact of migration on wages, income distribution, South–South remittances, gender, health and migrant rights;

d) Address the absence of centralized data‐collection units that can gather intelligence from other agencies.

Sharing and dissemination of migration data

a) Sensitize officials in various ministries on the need to address data and information deficiencies aggressively, while elevating the priority of migration issues in the policy discussion through the ambit of CARICOM;

b) Elevate the priority of migration issues to ensure that the appropriate financial, technical and human resources are committed, such that policy reform can become a reality in the medium to long term.


68

Policy change

a) Ensure wider and more sustained engagement/consultation with civil society on policies through town hall meetings, NGO interaction with government ministries, and discussion forums;

b) Sensitize the leadership of key agencies, such as in ministries of national security, on the importance of migration issues, the nexus between migration and development and promote a reorientation of the leadership towards the importance of research for better policymaking;

c) Ensure comprehensive reform to immigration policy based on priority economic sectors and labour needs;

d) Develop a well‐articulated immigration policy that identifies which skillsets the particular country is seeking to attract, and promote stricter implementation of stipulations under countries’ respective immigration acts;

e) Strengthen national border patrols to reduce irregular migration and ensure greater collaboration with the regional and international security apparatus to curtailhuman trafficking;

f) Develop a specific refugee policy that honours the commitment to international conventions to protect human rights of refugees.

CSME and labour mobility

a) Ratify legislation on six‐month stays by all countries participating in the CSME;

b) Renew commitment to the spirit and letter of the CSME;

c) Address anomalies in immigration practice that are discriminatory and which run counter to the agreed treaty governing human mobility under the CSME;

d) Lessen bureaucracy in the application process for CSME skills certificates;

e) Ensure that CSME implementation units are fully active and equipped in all participating countries, including proper data entry and collection methods.


69

7. References

Antillean2008 A Taboo critique of the CSME: We’ve had enough of anti‐Barbadian

rhetoric. The Antillean, 26 September. Available from http://www.antillean.org/2008/09/26/a‐taboo‐critique‐of‐the‐csme/.

Bakker, C., M. Elings-Pels and M. Reis2009 The Impact of Migration on Children in the Caribbean. Paper no. 4,

UNICEF Office for Barbados and Eastern Caribbean. Brown, D., N. Watson, L. Joseph-Brown and D. Leander-Watson

2010 A Consultancy to Assess the Impact of Free Movement of Persons and Other Forms of Migration on Other Member States. CISP/CSME/1.5.1.4.(b) /SER09.10.

Byron-Reid, J.2000 The return of the Cocolos: Migration, national identity and

regionalism in the Leeward Islands. Global Development Studies, 2: 251‐75.

Burrowes, M.2009 Collecting the memories: Migrant voices in the Barbadian‐UK

migration project. In: Freedom and Constraint in Caribbean Migration and Diaspora (E. Thomas‐Hope, ed.). Ian Randle Publishers Ltd, Jamaica, p.137.

Central Statistical Office (CSO), Trinidad and Tobago1997 Migration Report. 2000 National Census Report. 2011 Trinidad and Tobago 2011 Population and Housing Census

Demographic Report.Central Statistical Office, Dominica

2005 The Survey of Students of Migrant Parents. Chailloux, G., R. Gomez Navia, R. Whitney, F. Chang, M. Corrales Capestany

2005 De Dónde Son Los Cubanos?, Ciencias Sociales, Havana, Cuba.Cholewinski, R., J. Redpath, S. Nonnenmacher and J. Packer

2006 The international normative framework with reference to migration in the greater Caribbean. In: Intra-Caribbean Migration and the Conflict Nexus (T. Lesser, B. Fernández‐Alfaro, L. Cowie, N. Bruni eds.). Human Rights Internet, Ottawa, p 2.

Crawford-Brown, C. and M. Rattray 1994 The “barrel children” of the Caribbean: The socio‐cultural context of

the migrant Caribbean family. Sistren, 16.

http://www.antillean.org/2008/09/26/a-taboo-critique-of-the-csme/

http://www.antillean.org/2008/09/26/a-taboo-critique-of-the-csme/


70

Davis, A.2007 On the Map. Directed by Annalee Davis. See http://caribbeantales‐

worldwide.com/catalogue/documentaries/on‐the‐map‐2/. Duany, J.

2011 Blurred Borders: Transnational Migration Between the Hispanic Caribbean and the U.S. University of North Carolina Press, North Carolina.

Enchauteguí, M.2000 Los Determinantes de la Inmigración Dominicana a Puerto Rico.

Unidad de Investigaciones Ecónomicas, Puerto Rico, no. 104.Figueroa, M.

2009 Migration and remittances: Typologies and motivations. In: Freedom and Constraint in Migration and Diaspora (E. Thomas‐Hope, ed.). Ian Randle Publishers Ltd, Jamaica, p. 235.

Hernández, R.2002 The Mobility of Workers under Advanced Capitalism: Dominican

Migration to the United States. Columbia University Press, New York.

Jones, A., J. Sharpe and M. Sogren2004 Children’s Experiences of Separation from Parents as a Consequence

of Migration. The Caribbean Journal of Social Work, 3: 89‐109.Koch, C.

1977 Jamaican Blacks and their descendants in Costa Rica. Social and Economic Studies, 26(3): 104.

Lewis, P.2011 Training nurses for export: A viable development strategy? Social

and Economic Studies, 60(2): 67‐104. Maingot, A.

1991 Small Country Development and International Labor Flows: Experiences in the Caribbean. Westview Press, Boulder.

Mills, F.2007 The demographic transition and implications for immigration in

Caribbean microstates. Paper presented at Caribbean Studies Association Conference, Salvador da Bahia, Brazil.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)2005 Trends in Migration. OECD, Paris.

Orozco, M.2002 Globalization and migration: The impact of family remittances in

Latin America. Latin American Politics and Society, 44(2): 41‐66.

http://caribbeantales-worldwide.com/catalogue/documentaries/on-the-map-2/

http://caribbeantales-worldwide.com/catalogue/documentaries/on-the-map-2/


71

2003 The Impact of Migration in the Caribbean and Central American Region. Policy Paper, Canadian Foundation for the Americas (FOCAL), Ottawa.

2004 The Remittance Marketplace: Prices, Policy and Financial Institutions. Pew Hispanic Center Report, Washington, D.C.

Pessar, P.1996 Dominican transnational migration: Uneven benefits back home

and the contingency of return. In: The Dominican Republic Today, Realities and Perspectives in English and Spanish (E. Betances and H. A. Spalding Jr., eds.). Bildner Center for Western Hemisphere Studies, New York.

1997 Dominicans: Forging an ethnic community in New York. In: Beyond Black and White: New Faces and Voices in U.S. Schools (M. Seller and L. Weis, eds.). SUNY Press, Albany, p. 131.

Pizarro, J.2005 International Migration in Latin America and the Caribbean: Facts

and Findings. ECLAC/CELADE, Santiago, Chile.Ponce, P.

2010 Overview on South–South Migration and Development Trends and Research Needs in the Caribbean. ACP Observatory on Migration/IOM, Brussels.

Purcell, T.W.1993 Banana Fallout: Class, Color, and Culture among West Indians in

Costa Rica. University of California, Los Angeles. Reis, M.

2007 Vision 2020: The role of migration in Trinidad and Tobago’s plan for overall development. Social and Economic Studies (SES), UWI Press, Mona, 56(4): 231‐254.

2009 Contemporary Venezuelan student emigration to Trinidad. In: Freedom and Constraint in Caribbean Migration and Diaspora, (E. Thomas‐Hope, ed.). Ian Randle Publishers Ltd., Jamaica, p. 36.

Ratha. D. and W. Shaw2007 South–South Migration and Remittances. Development Prospects

Group, World Bank, Washington, D.C.Sanders, R.

2012 China and Caribbean countries: Setting the relationship right. Knews, 15 April. Available from http://www.kaieteurnewsonline.com/2012/04/15/china‐and‐caribbean‐countries‐getting‐the‐relationship‐right/.

http://www.kaieteurnewsonline.com/2012/04/15/china-and-caribbean-countries-getting-the-relationship-right/




72

Schmid, K.2003 Emigration of Nurses from the Caribbean: Causes and Consequences

for the Socio-Economic Welfare of the Country: Trinidad and Tobago – A Case Study. Port of Spain: UNECLAC LC/CAR/G.748.

Thomas-Hope, E.1992 Caribbean Migration. University of the West Indies Press, Kingston.2003 Irregular Migration and Asylum-Seekers in the Caribbean. Discussion

Paper no. 2003/48, United Nations University, World Institute for Development Economics Research.

2006 Human trafficking in the context of Caribbean labor migration. In: Intra-Caribbean Migration and the Conflict Nexus (T. Lesser, B. Fernández‐Alfaro, L. Cowie, N. Bruni eds.). Human Rights Internet, Ottawa, p. 245.

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)2013 Indices and Data, Human Development Index (HDI) ‐ 2012 Rankings.

UNDP, New York. Available from http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN DESA), Population Division

2006 Trends in Total Migrant Stock: The 2005 Revision. POP/DB/Mig/Rev.2005.

2011 International Migration Report 2009. A Global Assessment, UN, New York.

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Association (UNESCO) Institute for Statistics

2001 The Caribbean and Latin America, English, Dutch and French-speaking Countries, Good Neighbours: Caribbean Students at The Tertiary Level of Education. UNESCO Institute for Statistics, Nimes.

United States Department of State2008 Human Rights Report: Trinidad and Tobago. Bureau of Human

Rights and Labor. Available from http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/2008/wha/119175.htm.

Waldropt-Bonair, L-A., J. Sherma Foster, G. Grey and S. Alfonso2013 Invisible Immigrants: A Profile of Irregular Migration, Trafficking in

Persons and Smuggling of Migrants in Trinidad and Tobago. The ACP Observatory on Migration/IOM, Brussels.

Wickham, P., C.L.A. Wharton, D.A. Marshall and H.A. Darlington-Weekes 2004 Freedom of Movement: The Cornerstone of the Caribbean Single

Market and Economy (CSME). Caribbean Development Research Services.

http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/

http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/2008/wha/119175.htm

http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/2008/wha/119175.htm


73

Wiltshire, R.1987 Transnational Migrant Networks: Implications for Donor Societies

(Grenada and St. Vincent). IDRC, Canada.World Bank

2009 The Nurse Labor and Education Markets in the English-Speaking CARICOM: Issues and Options for Reform. Human Development Department, Caribbean Country Management Unit, Latin America and the Caribbean Region. Report No. 48988‐LAC.

2011 Migration and Remittances Factbook 2011, 2nd Edition. International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, Washington, D.C.

Whyte-Givans, S.2009 Free movement of persons in the CARICOM Single Market and

Economy: Issues of National and Regional Security Policy. In: Freedom and Constraint in Migration and Diaspora (E. Thomas‐Hope, ed.). Ian Randle Publishers Ltd, Jamaica, p. 355.


75

8. Annex: Sample specimen of policymakers’ survey form

Thank you for agreeing to participate in this survey on official migration policy and immigration issues in (study country). This study is being conducted by Kairi Consultants Ltd. on behalf of the ACP Migration Observatory. Please take a few minutes to fill out this survey and return via email at [email protected]. We welcome your feedback and any information provided will be kept strictly confidential. We will use the information to provide a policy brief on improving migration policy in the Caribbean region.

Section 1: General information

1. In which country is your organization based?

Study country Saint Kitts and Nevis Barbados Other

2. Which of the following best describes the type of organization with which you work?

o National Government (Government Ministry/Department)

o Non‐governmental Organization

o Private company

o Regional Organization

o University/research institute

o Private individual/independent advocate

o Trade/Labor union

o Other (Please specify) ___________________________

3. Name of Organization?

_______________________________________________________________

4. What title best describes your position within the organization?

_______________________________________________________________

mailto:[email protected]


76

Section 2: Key issues

5. In your opinion, what are the most pressing issues driving intra‐regional migration today?

_______________________________________________________________

6 Which of the following is currently of greater concern to (Study Country)?

Outward Migration Inward Migration

7. Which of the following is the primary reason for concern stated in previous question?

o Brain drain/permanent skillset loss

o Resource constraints and population growth

o Replacement of natural population with less skilled immigrants

o Rates of deportation of nationals

o Assimilation (lack of)


8. What factors do you think influence immigration into (Study Country) the most?

o Better relative income prospects in some islands

o Better relative standard of living in some islands

o Pursuit of higher education

o Political instability in some islands

o Economic hardship in some islands

o Environmental hazards and natural disasters in some islands

o Other (please specify) _______________________________

Please list the top 3 influencing factors of those selected from above:

1.

2.

3.


77

9. On a scale of 1‐5, how would you rate the overall attitude towards migrants in (study country)

1. Extremely negative

Slightly negative Indifferent Slightly

positiveExtremely positive

10. Does the perceived origin of the migrants influence the general attitude towards them?

Yes No

If “Yes”, please elaborate.

Section 3: Official policy

11. Is there a national immigration programme that targets migrants with specific skill‐sets?

Yes No

12. Do the practiced national immigration policies differ in any way from what is stipulated at the CARICOM level?

Yes No

If “Yes”, in what ways?

13. How would you rank ease of access to the following services to immigrants in (study country)?

Service Easy Difficult

Obtaining work permits/legal worker status

School enrollment for the children of recent immigrants

Access to primary health care

The ease of establishing bank accounts

The ease of obtaining real property


78

14. In general, what (if any) provisions are there to support family migration into (Study Country)?

_______________________________________________________________

15. Are there specific laws for migrants seeking temporary and permanent resident status? (Please elaborate)

_______________________________________________________________

Section 4: Trends and Patterns

16. Is there a perceptible phenomenon of migrants working as sex workers in (study country)?

Yes No

17. Have migrants been generally associated with crime and the underground economy of (Study Country)?

Yes No

18.(a) Which of the following are the most prominent ways in which migrants contribute to the economy of (study country)? (Please select all that apply)

o Establishing businesses

o Providing highly skilled labor

o Providing low‐skilled Labor in under‐occupied job


18.(b) Does the origin/ nationality of the migrant group correlate strongly with the ways in which they contribute?

Yes No

If “Yes”, please elaborate.


79

19. On the following variables, what impact are migrants generally perceived to have?

Variable Positive Negative

The health sector

The education sector

The labor market

Social safety nets

Social relations

Are there specific reasons why the perceptions stated above persist? (Please elaborate)

_______________________________________________________________

Section 5: Sources of information

20. How does the government view the necessity of collecting migration data on a regular and consistent basis?

Not Important Indifferent Very important

21. What do you see as some of the major constraints and challenges to collecting official data on migration in (Study Country)?

_______________________________________________________________

22. To what extent would you say the following entities have direct influence over formulating official migration policy?

Influence over migration policy NGOs Academic researchers

The private sector

1. None at all

2. Not much direct influence

3. Some direct influence

4. A little direct influence

5. Very much direct influence


80

23. How often is academic research used in determining official migration policies in (study country)?

Use of academic research in

determining policy1. Never

2. Occasionally

3. Always, and only with the aid of academic research

24. Is there a regular forum where NGOs interface with policymakers? Please elaborate on the relationship between the two stakeholders.

_______________________________________________________________

25. Do industry bodies (the private sector) impose a major influence migration policy?

Yes No

Please elaborate on the ways in which they influence policy.

26. Please identify the major constraints and challenges confronting the collection of official data on migration in (study country).

_______________________________________________________________

Section 6: Policy evaluation and reform

27. What are some of the costs and benefits that the government of (Study Country) associates with immigration in general?

Costs Benefits

What do you think is required to enhance the benefits and minimize the costs?

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________


81

28. Listed below are five (5) broad issues concerning migration policy. Please prioritize each issue on a scale of 1‐4 and identify at most three actions that can be taken at the government level to improve on what currently exists.

Prioritization Level

1.Immi-gration policy

2. The living con-ditions of

immi-grants

3. The treat-ment of

detainees at the detention

facility

4. Protection of migrant

workers from unfair wage conditions

5. The curtail-ment of irregular migra-

tion1. Not a

concern in any way

2. Not an immediate concern

3. Important, but not urgent

4. Should be a top priority

Issue 1.

_______________________________________________________________

Issue 2.

_______________________________________________________________

Issue 3.

_______________________________________________________________

Issue 4.

_______________________________________________________________

Issue 5.

_______________________________________________________________


82

Section 7: Additional feedback

29. Please list any other concerns that you see as urgent and which should be addressed at the policy level.

_______________________________________________________________

30. Please share any additional comments.

_______________________________________________________________

Section 8: Personal Information

Providing the following information is optional.

First Name: ________ Last Name: ________

Organization Address: ________

Telephone: ________ Gender: ________ Age: ________

Would you like someone to contact you regarding your responses on this survey?

Yes No

Thank you for taking the time to fill out our survey. We rely on your feedback to help us improve evidence‐based policy recommendations to your government. Your input is greatly appreciated.

An Initiative of the ACP Secretariat, Funded by the European Union

Implemented by IOM and with the Financial Support of Switzerland, IOM, the IOM Development Fund and UNFPA

ACP Observatory on Migration20, rue Belliardstraat (7th floor)1040 Brussels - BelgiumTel.: +32 (0)2 894 92 30 - Fax: +32 (0)2 894 92 [email protected] - www.acpmigration-obs.org

International Organization for Migration (IOM)Organisation internationale pour les migrations (OIM)Organização Internacional para as Migrações (OIM)

Observatorymigration

South-South

West Africa

Caribbean

Pacific

remittances

health

urbanizationgender

diasporas

environment

developmenttraining

statistics

return

integration

database

traffickinglabour

displacement

rightsAngola

Trinidad and Tobago

Tanzania

Cameroon

Haiti

Senegal

Republic

Democratic

of the Congo

Timor-Leste

Nigeria

PapuaNew Guinea

Lesotho

Kenya

East Africa

AfricaSouthern

Central Africa

internal

Although migratory movements in the Caribbean have a long historical precedence and are deeply embedded in the behaviour of its people, so far there has not been sufficient research on the factors that influence them and the extent of their effects. This study examines three countries with high migrant stocks in the region: Barbados, Trinidad and Tobago and Saint Kitts and Nevis, exploring the impact of migration on receiving and sending countries, with particular focus on its costs and benefits for migrants and their families.

As the Caribbean Single Market and Economy gives preference to tertiary educated migrants, intraregional migration tends to be highly skilled. Immigrants are mostly from the South, not only from the region but also extraregional. Discrimination and xenophobia appear as critical issues to be addressed by policymakers in the region.